United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION [ECF NO. 37]
V. PARKER U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
a pro se litigant, commenced this civil rights
action against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
on June 3, 2015. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge
R. Steven Whalen for all pretrial proceedings, and on
February 21, 2017, Magistrate Judge Whalen issued a report
and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending this
Court grant motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 21, 30)
filed by Defendant Jolandra Mack and Defendant Krista Boyd.
Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R. In an opinion and
order entered on March 27, 2017, this Court adopted
Magistrate Judge Whalen's recommendation and entered
judgment in favor of Defendants. Presently before the Court
is Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). (ECF No. 37.) For the
reasons that follow, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion.
Rule 7.1(h) provides that a motion for reconsideration only
should be granted if the movant demonstrates that the Court
and the parties have been misled by a palpable defect and a
different disposition of the case would result from a
correction of such defect. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). Palpable
defects are those which are “obvious, clear,
unmistakable, manifest or plain.” Mich. Dep't
of Treasury v. Michalec, 181 F.Supp.2d 731, 734 (E.D.
Mich. 2002). “It is an exception to the norm for the
Court to grant a motion for reconsideration.”
Maiberger v. City of Livonia, 724 F.Supp.2d 759, 780
(E.D. Mich. 2010). “[A] motion for reconsideration is
not properly used as a vehicle to re-hash old arguments or to
advance positions that could have been argued earlier but
were not.” Smith v. Mount Pleasant Pub. Sch.,
298 F.Supp.2d 636, 637 (E.D. Mich. 2003) (citing Sault
Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d
367, 374 (6th Cir.1998)). Therefore, a motion that merely
presents the same issues already ruled upon by the Court
shall not be granted. Id.
to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) may be
granted only if there is a clear error of law, newly
discovered evidence, an intervening change in controlling
law, or to prevent manifest injustice. Gencorp., Inc. v.
Am. Int'l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir.
1999). “Rule 59(e) permits a court to alter or amend a
judgment, but it ‘may not be used to relitigate old
matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could
have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.'”
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n. 5
(2008) (citing 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice
and Procedure § 2810.1, 127-28 (2d ed. 1995)). As
several judges in this District have stated,
“[Rule 59(e)] motions . . . are not intended as a
vehicle to relitigate previously considered issues; should
not be utilized to submit evidence which could have been
previously submitted in the exercise of reasonable diligence;
and are not the proper vehicle to attempt to obtain a
reversal of a judgment by offering the same arguments
Kenneth Henes Special Projects Procurement v. Cont'l
Biomass Indus., Inc., 86 F.Supp.2d 721, 726 (E.D. Mich.
2000) (quoting Nagle Indus., Inc. v. Ford Motor
Co., 175 F.R.D. 251, 254 (E.D. Mich. 1997),
aff'd 194 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). “[A
motion to alter or reconsider a judgment] ‘is an
extraordinary remedy and should be granted sparingly because
of the interests in finality and conservation of scarce
judicial resources.'” In re J & M Salupo
Dev. Co., 388 B.R. 795, 805 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2008)
(quoting Am. Textile Mfrs. Inst., Inc. v. Ltd. Inc.,
179 F.R.D. 541, 547 (S.D. Ohio 1998)).
motion, as she did in her objection to Magistrate Judge
Whalen's R&R, Plaintiff mostly reiterates the
original arguments she made in response to Defendants'
summary judgment motions. She does not present any new
information that would warrant a different treatment of her
claims. Plaintiff improperly attempts to use the relief
afforded in Rule 59(e) as a vehicle to restate her previous
arguments. Therefore, Plaintiff has not persuaded the Court
that she is entitled to relief under Local Rule 7 or Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiff's motion
for reconsideration (ECF No. 37) is DENIED.
hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was
mailed to counsel of record and/or pro se parties on this
date, October 11, 2017, ...