1 

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 (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION (ECF #73); AND (2) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S 

OBJECTIONS (ECF ##68, 69) TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDERS 

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF #65) AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (ECF #66) 

In this action, Plaintiff Morris Weatherspoon (“Weatherspoon”) – an inmate 

in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) – alleges 

that several MDOC prison officials violated his First and Eighth Amendment 

Rights. (See ECF #1 at 2-4, Pg. ID 2-4). Specifically, Weatherspoon alleges that 

the Defendants restricted his access to, and failed to comply with, the prison’s 

grievance-filing process in violation of the First Amendment and were deliberately 

indifferent to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (See id. at 

4-8, Pg. ID 4-8.) 

2:14-cv-12789-MFL-DRG Doc # 74 Filed 10/05/15 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 499
2 

Weatherspoon properly served Defendants Jon Pavitt (“Pavitt”), Gail Wang 

(“Wang”), Eutrilla Taylor (“Taylor”), and Diana Hering (“Hering”) with his 

Complaint. (See ECF ##11-14, Pg. ID 109-12.) On November 3, 2014, Pavitt, 

Wang, Taylor, and Hering submitted a joint Motion for Summary Judgment (see

ECF #18 at 1, Pg. ID 137) to the assigned Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report 

and Recommendation (“R&R”) on April 24, 2015 recommending that the Court 

grant the motion in their favor. (See ECF #49 at 11-12, Pg. ID 341-42.) The Court 

issued an Opinion and Order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s R&R as the opinion 

of the Court and granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants Pavitt, Wang, 

Taylor, and Hering on the grounds that they were entitled to qualified immunity on 

all of Weatherspoon’s claims. (See ECF #67 at 11, Pg. ID 465.) On September 11, 

2015, Weatherspoon filed a document that he titled an “Objection” to the Court’s 

order adopting the R&R. (See ECF #73 at 1, Pg. ID 492.) In the Objection, 

Weatherspoon complains that the Court erred in adopting the R&R. (Id.) 

Weatherspoon also properly served his Complaint on Defendant Angela 

Vettraino (“Vettraino”) on July 16, 2015. (See ECF #55 at 1, Pg. ID 398.) 

Vettraino then filed her own motion for summary judgment on August 4, 2015 and 

adopted the arguments that Defendants Pavitt, Wang, Taylor, and Hering made in 

their motion. (See ECF #61 at 7, Pg. ID 425.) The Magistrate Judge originally 

ordered Weatherspoon to respond to Vettraino’s motion by August 28, 2015, but 

2:14-cv-12789-MFL-DRG Doc # 74 Filed 10/05/15 Pg 2 of 9 Pg ID 500
3 

he later agreed to extend the response deadline to October 30, 2015. (See ECF #65 

at 1-2, Pg. ID 449-50). Weatherspoon now objects that the extension to October 

30th is too short. (See ECF #68 at 1-2, Pg. ID 467-68). 

Weatherspoon still has not served Defendants Susan George (“George”), 

Tamara Scheppelman (“Scheppelman”), or a Defendant whom Weatherspoon has 

identified only as “Woern,” with the Complaint in this case. Weatherspon was 

originally required to provide the correct address for these Defendants by August 

24, 2015. However, the Magistrate Judge has agreed to extend that deadline to 

October 30, 2015. (See ECF #65 at 1-2, Pg. ID 449-50). Weatherspoon also 

objects that this extension is too short. (See ECF #68 at 1-2, Pg. ID 467-68). 

Finally, Weatherspoon filed a motion to appoint counsel on August 20, 

2015. (See ECF #64 at 1, Pg. ID 438.) The Magistrate Judge issued an Order 

denying Weatherspoon’s motion on August 25, 2015. (See ECF #66 at 2, Pg. ID 

453). Weatherspoon has also objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Order denying 

appointment of counsel. (See ECF # 66 at 1, Pg. ID 481.) 

For the reasons provided below, the Court (1) OVERRULES

Weatherspoon’s Objection (ECF #68) to the Order Granting in Part and Denying in 

Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (ECF #65), (2) OVERRULES

Weatherspoon’s Objection (ECF #69) to the Order Denying Motion for 

Appointment of Counsel (ECF #66), (3) deems the Objection (ECF #73) to be a 

2:14-cv-12789-MFL-DRG Doc # 74 Filed 10/05/15 Pg 3 of 9 Pg ID 501
4 

motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order adopting the R&R, and (4) 

DENIES the motion for reconsideration. 

A. The Magistrate Judge’s Sixty-Day Time Extensions Provide 

Weatherspoon Ample Time to Respond to Vettraino’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment and to Provide Correct Addresses for the 

Unserved Defendants 

 The Magistrate Judge gave Weatherspoon an additional sixty days to 

respond to Vettraino’s motion for summary judgment and to provide correct 

addresses for the unserved Defendants. The Magistrate Judge determined that the 

sixty-day extension was sufficient to account for Weatherspoon’s pro se status, his 

alleged “pain with disability and disfigurement both mentally and physically,” and 

his temporary placement in administrative segregation. (See ECF #65. at 1-2, Pg. 

ID 449-50.) 

 Weatherspoon wants more time – until January 16, 2016 – to respond to the 

motion and provide the addresses. (See ECF #68 at 1-2, Pg. ID 467-68.) 

Weatherspoon claims that a jury trial for another action in which he is a litigant 

(which is scheduled for October 26, 2015) interferes with his ability to comply 

with the Magistrate Judge’s Order. (Id.) He also asserts that the Michigan 

Attorney General has not responded to his discovery requests for the remaining 

Defendants’ addresses. (Id.) 

 The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s sixty-day extension 

properly accounted for Weatherspoon’s circumstances and provided him with a 

2:14-cv-12789-MFL-DRG Doc # 74 Filed 10/05/15 Pg 4 of 9 Pg ID 502
5 

lengthy and reasonable time period in which to comply with the Court’s orders. 

Moreover, Weatherspoon’s voluminous filings in this case demonstrate to the 

Court that he has ample time to devote to this case. Thus, the Court overrules 

Weatherspoon’s objection to the Order requiring him to respond to Vettraino’s 

motion for summary judgment and provide correct addresses for the unserved 

Defendants by October 30, 2015. 

B. Weatherspoon’s Case Does Not Merit Appointment of Counsel 

Weatherspoon filed a motion to appoint counsel on October 29, 2014. (See 

ECF #15 at 1, Pg. ID 113.) The Magistrate Judge denied that motion on November 

7, 2014, but included the following caveat: “Should Weatherspoon’s case survive 

dispositive motion practice and proceed to trial, he may file a renewed motion for 

the appointment of counsel at that time.” (ECF #23 at 2, Pg. ID 239.) 

 Weatherspoon filed a renewed motion to appoint counsel on August 20, 

2015. (See ECF #64 at 1, Pg. ID 438.) Once again, the Magistrate Judge denied 

Weatherspoon’s motion because Weatherspoon had not survived dispositive 

motion practice. (See ECF #66 at 2-3, Pg. ID 452-53.) Weatherspoon objects to 

the Magistrate Judge’s denial of his motion to appoint counsel, arguing that prison 

officials are intentionally hindering his efforts to pursue non-frivolous claims by 

restricting his access to the prison law library and photocopier. (See ECF #69 at 1-

2, Pg. ID 481-82.) 

2:14-cv-12789-MFL-DRG Doc # 74 Filed 10/05/15 Pg 5 of 9 Pg ID 503
6 

Appointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right. It is a 

privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances, which depend on the 

type of case, the plaintiff’s abilities to represent himself, the complexity of the 

factual and legal issues involved, and the claim’s relative merits. Lavado v. 

Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605-06 (6th Cir. 1993) (internal quotations and citations 

omitted).” The Court is not persuaded that Weatherspoon’s claims warrant the 

appointment of counsel at this time. As a result, Weatherspoon’s objection is 

overruled. 

C. The Court Denies Weatherspoon’s Motion for Reconsideration Because 

He Has Identified No Palpable Defect With the Court’s Opinion and 

Order Adopting the Magistrate Judge’s R&R 

 On August 31, 2015, this Court issued an Order adopting the Magistrate 

Judge’s Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court grant 

summary judgment in favor of Defendants Hering, Wang, Pavitt, and Taylor 

because they were entitled to qualified immunity with respect to all of 

Weatherspoon’s claims. (See ECF #67 at 2-3, Pg. ID 456-57.) 

 On September 11, 2015, Weatherspoon filed his “Objection to the Adoption 

the [sic] Report and Recommendation as the the [sic] Opinion of the Court (Doc. 

No. 67) Consistent to [sic] Fed. R. Civ. P., Rule 72; E.D. MI. L.R. 72.1(d)(2).” 

(ECF #73 at 1, Pg. ID 492.) The Court will construe Weatherspoon’s objection as 

a motion for reconsideration of the Opinion and Order adopting the R&R (the 

2:14-cv-12789-MFL-DRG Doc # 74 Filed 10/05/15 Pg 6 of 9 Pg ID 504
7 

“Motion for Reconsideration”), though the motion is styled as an objection to the 

Magistrate Judge’s R&R. 

 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, nor to proffer new arguments or evidence that the movant could have 

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

1998). 

 Weatherspoon has not identified any palpable defect with the Court’s 

adoption of the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. His Motion for Reconsideration simply 

rehashes arguments this Court has already determined to be meritless. For 

example, Weatherspoon claims that prison officials denied him adequate medical 

care when they “only provided 4 tablets” of pain relief medication. (ECF #73 at 4, 

Pg. ID 495). The Court rejected this argument because it “boils down to 

[Weatherspoon’s] apparent disagreement with the type and/or quantity of pain 

medication” he received. (ECF #67 at 6, Pg. ID 460.) Additionally, Weatherspoon 

reasserts that the Defendants retaliated against him in violation of the First 

2:14-cv-12789-MFL-DRG Doc # 74 Filed 10/05/15 Pg 7 of 9 Pg ID 505
8 

Amendment by failing to process his grievance forms. (See ECF #73 at 5, Pg. ID 

496.) The Court also rejected this argument because Weatherspoon never provided 

any evidence that the Defendants took adverse action or harbored any animus 

against him. (See ECF #67 at 11, Pg. ID 465.) 

Even a generous reading of Weatherspoon’s Motion for Reconsideration 

reveals that he has done nothing more than reargue his Eighth Amendment 

deliberate indifference claims and his First Amendment retaliation claims. 

Weatherspoon has therefore failed to show a palpable defect with the Court’s 

Order adopting the R&R and the Court denies his Motion for Reconsideration. 

CONCLUSION

 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 Weatherspoon’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order Granting in Part 

and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (ECF #68) is 

OVERRULED.

 Weatherspoon shall provide the correct addresses for all unserved 

Defendants and respond to Defendant Vettraino’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment by October 30, 2015; 

 Weatherspoon’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order Denying 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF #69) is 

OVERRULED; and 

2:14-cv-12789-MFL-DRG Doc # 74 Filed 10/05/15 Pg 8 of 9 Pg ID 506
9 

 Weatherspoon’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF #73) is DENIED. 

s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: October 5, 2015 

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

and/or counsel of record on October 5, 2015, by electronic means and/or ordinary 

mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

2:14-cv-12789-MFL-DRG Doc # 74 Filed 10/05/15 Pg 9 of 9 Pg ID 507