UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

AUDREY AIKENS, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 15-cv-12016 

v. Honorable Linda V. Parker 

JOLANDRA MACK, et al., 

 Defendants.

________________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION [ECF NO. 37] 

Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, commenced this civil rights action against 

Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 3, 2015. The matter was referred 

to Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen for all pretrial proceedings, and on February 

21, 2017, Magistrate Judge Whalen issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) 

recommending this Court grant motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 21, 30) 

filed by Defendant Jolandra Mack and Defendant Krista Boyd. Plaintiff filed 

objections to the R&R. In an opinion and order entered on March 27, 2017, this 

Court adopted Magistrate Judge Whalen’s recommendation and entered judgment 

in favor of Defendants. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). (ECF No. 37.) 

For the reasons that follow, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion. 
2

Applicable Standards

Local Rule 7.1(h) provides that a motion for reconsideration only should be 

granted if the movant demonstrates that the Court and the parties have been misled 

by a palpable defect and a different disposition of the case would result from a 

correction of such defect. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). Palpable defects are those 

which are “obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or plain.” Mich. Dep’t of 

Treasury v. Michalec, 181 F. Supp. 2d 731, 734 (E.D. Mich. 2002). “It is an 

exception to the norm for the Court to grant a motion for reconsideration.” 

Maiberger v. City of Livonia, 724 F. Supp. 2d 759, 780 (E.D. Mich. 2010). “[A] 

motion for reconsideration is not properly used as a vehicle to re-hash old 

arguments or to advance positions that could have been argued earlier but were 

not.” Smith v. Mount Pleasant Pub. Sch., 298 F. Supp. 2d 636, 637 (E.D. Mich. 

2003) (citing Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F. 3d 367, 

374 (6th Cir.1998)). Therefore, a motion that merely presents the same issues 

already ruled upon by the Court shall not be granted. Id. 

Motions to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) may be granted 

only if there is a clear error of law, newly discovered evidence, an intervening 

change in controlling law, or to prevent manifest injustice. Gencorp., Inc. v. Am. 

Int’l Underwriters, 178 F. 3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999). “Rule 59(e) permits a court 

to alter or amend a judgment, but it ‘may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to 
3

raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry 

of judgment.’” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n. 5 (2008) (citing 

11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1, 127-28 (2d ed. 

1995)). As several judges in this District have stated, 

 “[Rule 59(e)] motions . . . are not intended as a vehicle to 

relitigate previously considered issues; should not be utilized to 

submit evidence which could have been previously submitted in 

the exercise of reasonable diligence; and are not the proper 

vehicle to attempt to obtain a reversal of a judgment by offering 

the same arguments previously presented.” 

Kenneth Henes Special Projects Procurement v. Cont’l Biomass Indus., Inc., 86 F. 

Supp. 2d 721, 726 (E.D. Mich. 2000) (quoting Nagle Indus., Inc. v. Ford Motor 

Co., 175 F.R.D. 251, 254 (E.D. Mich. 1997), aff’d 194 F. 3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 

1999)). “[A motion to alter or reconsider a judgment] ‘is an extraordinary remedy 

and should be granted sparingly because of the interests in finality and 

conservation of scarce judicial resources.’” In re J & M Salupo Dev. Co., 388 B.R. 

795, 805 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Am. Textile Mfrs. Inst., Inc. v. Ltd. Inc., 

179 F.R.D. 541, 547 (S.D. Ohio 1998)). 

Analysis

In her motion, as she did in her objection to Magistrate Judge Whalen’s 

R&R, Plaintiff mostly reiterates the original arguments she made in response to 

Defendants’ summary judgment motions. She does not present any new 

information that would warrant a different treatment of her claims. Plaintiff 
4

improperly attempts to use the relief afforded in Rule 59(e) as a vehicle to restate 

her previous arguments. Therefore, Plaintiff has not persuaded the Court that she 

is entitled to relief under Local Rule 7 or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 37) 

is DENIED. 

 s/ Linda V. Parker 

 LINDA V. PARKER 

 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: October 11, 2017 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of 

record and/or pro se parties on this date, October 11, 2017, by electronic and/or 

U.S. First Class mail. 

 s/ R. Loury 

 Case Manager