Wise v. Berghuis, No. 2:2013cv10360 - Document 17 (E.D. Mich. 2014)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 16 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DTof)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ANGELO WISE, Petitioner, Case Number 2:13-cv-10360 Honorable Paul D. Borman v. MARY BERGHUIS, Respondent. ______________________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Dkt. 16] Petitioner, Angelo Wise, a state prisoner, filed this case under 28 U.S.C. ยง 22541. On February 15, 2013, the Court denied Petitioner s motion for an evidentiary hearing without prejudice. Petitioner has filed a motion for reconsideration. He state no basis whatsoever for his motion. Rather, he simply states that he wishes the Court to reconsider its order. Local Rule 7.1(h) allows a party to file a motion for reconsideration. However, a motion for reconsideration which presents the same issues already ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. Ford Motor Co. v. Greatdomains.com, Inc., 177 F. Supp. 2d 628, 632 (E.D. Mich. 2001). The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been misled but also show that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction thereof. A palpable defect is a defect that is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain. Witzke v. Hiller, 972 F. Supp. 426, 427 (E.D. Mich. 1997). Because Petitioner has not shown any reason why the Court s prior order was erroneously entered, his motion for reconsideration is DENIED. SO ORDERED. s/Paul D. Borman PAUL D. BORMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: February 3, 2014 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on February 3, 2014. s/Deborah Tofil Case Manager -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
