UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MORRIS WEATHERSPOON, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-12789 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

GEORGE LNU, et al. 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

OF ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION AND 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

 On January 9, 2015, Magistrate Judge David R. Grand issued a Report and 

Recommendation (the “R&R,” ECF #44) recommending that the Court deny 

Plaintiff Morris Weatherspoon’s Motions for Default Judgment as to Defendants 

George LNU, Angie LNU, Tammy LNU, Dr. Abdullateef, and LNU Woern (the 

“Motions for Default Judgment,” ECF ##33, 34, 35, 36, and 37). The R&R stated 

that the parties could object to and seek review of the recommendation within 14 

days. (See R&R at 3, Pg. ID 319.) No party objected to the R&R within the time 

allotted. The Court reviewed the R&R and agreed with the Magistrate Judge’s 

findings and conclusions. Accordingly, on February 4, 2015, the Court adopted 

the R&R as the Opinion of the Court and denied Plaintiff’s Motions for Default 

Judgment. (See the “Order Adopting the R&R,” ECF #45.) 

2:14-cv-12789-MFL-DRG Doc # 47 Filed 02/23/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 324
2 

 On February 6, 2015, the Court received Plaintiff’s “Motion Request for 

Reconsideration to File Objection(s) and Request the Court Enter (Uphold) Default 

Judgment against Defendants.” (See the “Motion for Reconsideration,” ECF #46.) 

In the Motion to Reconsideration, Plaintiff acknowledged that he did not timely 

object to the R&R. (See id. at ¶1.) Plaintiff’s failure to file timely objections to 

the R&R constitutes a waiver of the right to further judicial review. See, e.g., 

Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers, 829 F.2d 1370, 1374 (6th Cir. 1987) (failure to 

file objection to a report and recommendation “waived subsequent review of the 

matter”). Nonetheless, the Court will consider Plaintiff’s request for 

reconsideration. See, e.g., Pocaro v. TD Waterhouse, No. 06-13834, 2007 WL 

4327325 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 10, 2007) (considering pro se plaintiff’s post-judgment 

motion despite plaintiff’s failure to file objections to report and recommendation). 

On a motion for reconsideration, a movant must demonstrate that the court 

was misled by a “palpable defect.” E.D. Mich. L. R. 7.1(h)(3). A “palpable 

defect” is a defect that is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain. See 

Witzke v. Hiller, 972 F.Supp. 426, 427 (E.D. Mich. 1997). The movant must also 

show that the defect, if corrected, would result in a different disposition of the case. 

E.D. Mich. L. R. 7.1(h)(3). A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to rehash old arguments, or to proffer new arguments or evidence that the movant could 

2:14-cv-12789-MFL-DRG Doc # 47 Filed 02/23/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 325
3 

have presented earlier. See Sault Ste. Marie v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 

1998). 

Plaintiff has not identified a palpable defect in the R&R or the Order 

Adopting the R&R. The basis for the Motion for Reconsideration is difficult to 

comprehend. Plaintiff’s primary argument appears to be that the Court should 

grant his Motions for Default Judgment because he is unable to ascertain the 

Defendants’ last names. However, Plaintiff’s alleged inability to identify 

Defendants’ full names is simply not a basis for granting the requested default 

judgments. Moreover, as the Magistrate Judge explained in the R&R, this case is 

governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. 

Because this Court has not directed Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint 

pursuant to the PLRA, “the fact that none of them has yet filed such an answer 

does not subject them to entry of default judgments.” (R&R at 2.) Under these 

circumstances, Plaintiff has not identified any palpable defect in the R&R or the 

Order Adopting the R&R. 

 For the reasons discussed in this Order, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF #46) is DENIED. 

s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: February 23, 2015 

2:14-cv-12789-MFL-DRG Doc # 47 Filed 02/23/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 326
4 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties 

and/or counsel of record on February 23, 2015, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

2:14-cv-12789-MFL-DRG Doc # 47 Filed 02/23/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 327