Williams v. Campbell, No. 2:2015cv12914 - Document 14 (E.D. Mich. 2016)
Court Description: OPINION & ORDER denying 12 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Williams v. Campbell Doc. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION TAJUAN MARNEZ WILLIAMS, Case No. 2:15-CV-12914 HON. NANCY G. EDMUNDS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Petitioner, v. SHERMAN CAMPBELL, Respondent, _______________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION On February 1, 2016, petitioner’s motion to disqualify the Court from adjudicating his habeas petition was denied. Petitioner has now filed a motion for reconsideration. For the reasons stated below, the motion for reconsideration is denied. U.S. Dist.Ct. Rules, E.D. Mich. 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). A motion for reconsideration should be granted if the movant demonstrates a palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been misled and that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction thereof. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 79 F. Supp. 2d 768, 797 (E.D. Mich. 1999). 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). 1 Dockets.Justia.com Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration will be denied, because peitioner is merely presenting issues which were already ruled upon by this Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, when the Court denied the motion to disqualify. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 549, 553 (E.D. Mich. 1999). ORDER Based upon the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration [Dkt. # 12] is DENIED. s/ Nancy G. Edmunds HON. NANCY G. EDMUNDS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated:February 23, 2016 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.
