United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Stephanie Dawkins Davis United States Magistrate Judge
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION , DIRECTING SERVICE
WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF COSTS, AND AUTHORIZING
THE UNITED STATES MARSHAL TO COLLECT COSTS
AFTER SERVICE IS MADE
Gershwin A. Drain United States District Court Judge
2016, Plaintiff William Staples filed a pro se civil
rights complaint. Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff is a federal prisoner
currently confined at the United States Federal Correctional
Institution in Estill, South Carolina. Dkt. No. 10.
Plaintiff's brought his complaint against seven
defendants, pleading a variety of claims stemming from
different instances of alleged mistreatment while
incarcerated. See Dkt. No. 1. After reviewing
Plaintiff's complaint, the Court dismissed improperly
joined claims and defendants, and ordered Plaintiff to
provide materials needed to properly serve remaining
defendants. Dkt. Nos. 5, 8.
submitted extra copies of the complaint, but also filed an
objection to the Court's order. While objections are
properly filed to dispute the findings of a magistrate
judge's report and recommendation, the correct means by
which to dispute a district court judge's order is a
motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, the Court will
interpret Plaintiff's objection  as moving the Court
to reconsider its prior ruling.
reasons stated below, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff's motion .
motion for rehearing or reconsideration must be filed within
14 days after entry of the judgment or order.” E.D.
Mich. LR 7.1(h)(1). Under this Court's Local Rules, the
Court may not grant a motion for reconsideration that merely
presents the same issues upon which the Court already ruled.
E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). Additionally, the movant must
demonstrate that there is a palpable defect in the opinion or
order under attack and that correcting the defect will result
in a different disposition of the case. Id.;
Indah v. U.S. S.E.C., 661 F.3d 914, 924 (6th Cir.
2011). “A ‘palpable defect' is a defect which
is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.”
Hawkins v. Genesys Health Systems, 704 F.Supp.2d
688, 709 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (quoting Ososki v. St. Paul
Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 162 F.Supp.2d 714, 718 (E.D.
Failure to State a Claim
first objects that the Court should not dismissed some of his
claims prior to summary judgment. Dkt. No. 9, p. 2 (Pg. ID
55). However, contrary to Plaintiff's argument, the Court
did not dismiss his claim based on facts. The Court dismissed
Plaintiff's claim alleging his rights were violated by
having to pay a $2.00 co-pay for each medical visit because
the Sixth Circuit has already determined that a claim cannot
result from his action. See White v. Corr. Med. Servs.
Inc., 94 F. App'x 262, 264 (6th Cir. 2004)
(“It is constitutional to charge inmates a small fee
for health care where indigent inmates are guaranteed service
regardless of ability to pay.”). Even assuming all of
Plaintiff's alleged facts to be true, this claim cannot
legally rise to the level of a constitutional violation and
was properly dismissed with prejudice.
the Court denies Plaintiff's motion as to this point.
Dismissal of Defendant United States
Plaintiff objects to the Court's dismissal of Defendant
United States on the ground of sovereign immunity, arguing
that he may pursue the United States as a defendant under ...