United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO
COURT'S ORDER [DOC. # 37]
Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge.
Anderson (“Anderson”) is a state prisoner
proceeding in forma pauperis. He filed a civil
rights lawsuit against Michigan State Police Troopers Colter
Furst, Michael Thomas, and Nathan Ellis (collectively,
objects to the Court's April 20, 2018 order dismissing
previous objections he filed to two non-dispositive orders
from Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. [Doc. # 35].
reasons that follow, Anderson's objection is DISMISSED.
alleges that Defendants violated his Fourth Amendment rights
by using excessive force during his arrest. The Court granted
Anderson's application to proceed in forma
pauperis, and ordered the United States Marshal to serve
Defendants. The Marshal sent each Defendant a notice of the
lawsuit, and a request to waive service. All Defendants
returned executed waivers of service on September 19, 2017
and timely filed an answer on October 20, 2017. Anderson
filed a response to Defendants' answer on November 7,
Defendants answered his complaint, Anderson filed a request
for default, alleging that Defendants failed to timely file
an answer. The Court entered a notice denying Anderson's
request for a clerk's entry of default.
filed an affidavit, arguing that the Court erred in
concluding that Defendants' answer was due on October 20,
2017. Magistrate Judge Patti filed an order construing
Anderson's affidavit as a motion for reconsideration, and
denied the motion. In a motion for reconsideration, Anderson
made the same arguments, and Magistrate Judge Patti denied
Judge Patti also entered an order striking Anderson's
response to Defendants' answer as impermissible under
Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 7(a)(7).
objected to all of Magistrate Judge Patti's orders. The
Court dismissed Anderson's objections, finding that
Magistrate Judge Patti lawfully: 1) construed Anderson's
affidavit as a motion for reconsideration; 2) denied
Anderson's motion for reconsideration; and 3) struck
Anderson's reply from the record. [Doc. # 35].
Anderson filed an objection, this time to the Court's
order dismissing his previous objections. Anderson appears to
argue that the Marshal was required to attempt personal
service on Defendants before requesting that they waive
Rule 7.1(h)(3) provides the Court's standard of review on
a motion for reconsideration:
“Generally, and without restricting the court's
discretion, the court will not grant motions for ...
reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled
upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable
implication. The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable
defect by which the court and the parties and other persons
entitled to be heard on the motion have been misled but ...