UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

IN RE P.J. COTTER, 

 Debtor. 

______________________/ 

 Civil Case No. 15-12592 

P.J. COTTER, Honorable Linda V. Parker 

 

 Appellant, 

v. Bankruptcy Case No. 14-51270 

 Honorable Thomas J. Tucker 

MICHAEL STEVENSON, 

 Appellee. 

______________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION TO ALTER 

OR AMEND JUDGMENT

 This is an appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern 

District of Michigan. Debtor-Appellant P.J. Cotter (“Debtor”) appealed the 

Honorable Thomas J. Tucker’s July 8, 2015 order granting the bankruptcy trustee’s 

motion for authority to compromise claims. On September 23, 2015, this Court 

referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub for all pretrial 

proceedings. On February 9, 2016, following the parties’ filing of their appeal 

briefs, Magistrate Judge Majzoub issued a Report and Recommendation in which 

she recommended that the Court dismiss Debtor’s appeal for lack of standing. 

(ECF No. 10.) Debtor filed objections to the R&R (ECF No. 12), which the Court 

rejected in a March 21, 2016 opinion and order adopting Magistrate Judge 

Majzoub’s R&R and dismissing the appeal with prejudice. (ECF No. 15.) The 

4:15-cv-12592-LVP-MKM Doc # 20 Filed 05/24/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 904
Court entered a judgment on the same date. (ECF No. 16.) Presently before the 

Court is Debtor’s motion to alter or amend the judgment, filed April 6, 2016. 

(ECF No. 19.) 

 A motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 59(e) “allows for reconsideration; it does not permit parties to 

effectively ‘re-argue a case.’ ” Howard v. United States, 533 F.3d 472, 475 (6th 

Cir. 2008) (quoting Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 

F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998)). The Court may alter or amend its judgment only if 

there is: “(1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an intervening 

change in controlling law; or (4) a need to prevent manifest injustice.” Intera 

Corp. v. Henderson, 428 F.3d 605, 620 (6th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 

1070, (2006). “This standard is not inconsistent with the ‘palpable defect’ 

standard” applied in this District pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(h) when addressing 

motions for reconsideration. Henderson v. Walled Lake Consol. Sch., 469 F.3d 

479, 496 (6th Cir. 2006). Pursuant Rule 7.1, the Court will not grant motions for 

rehearing or reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled upon by the 

Court, either expressly or by reasonable implication. The movant must not only 

demonstrate a palpable defect by which the Court and the parties have been misled 

but also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the 

case. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). 

In his pending motion, Debtor raises the same arguments he asserted in his 

appeal brief and his objections to Magistrate Judge Majzoub’s R&R. These are 

4:15-cv-12592-LVP-MKM Doc # 20 Filed 05/24/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 905
issues on which the Court has already ruled. The Court is not persuaded that it 

made a clear error of law or that it was misled by a palpable defect when it 

dismissed Debtor’s appeal for lack of standing. It is not necessary to alter or 

amend the judgment to prevent manifest injustice. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Debtor’s motion to alter or amend judgment (ECF 

No. 19) is DENIED. 

 s/ Linda V. Parker 

 LINDA V. PARKER 

 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: May 24, 2016 

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

record and/or pro se parties on this date, May 24, 2016, by electronic and/or U.S. 

First Class mail. 

 s/ Richard Loury 

 Case Manager 

4:15-cv-12592-LVP-MKM Doc # 20 Filed 05/24/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 906