Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CORIELLE JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

PATRICIA CARUSO, ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 09-10910

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ARTHUR J. TARNOW

MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL J. HLUCHANIUK

 /

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [75] AND

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT [68] AND ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION [74]

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [75] and Motion for Default

Judgment [68].

On March 16, 2012, the court adopted the Report and Recommendation [67] of the

Magistrate Judge and granted Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment [53] and [62]. On April

12, 2012, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Reconsideration [75]. On February 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed

a Motion for Default Judgment [68] with respect to Defendant Christopher Acord. On April 3, 2012

the Magistrate issued a Report and Recommendation [74] recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for

Default be denied and that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Acord and Seller be denied. On

April 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Objection [76].

Motion for Reconsideration

 Local Rule 7.1(h)(3) provides that:

Generally, and without restricting the court’s discretion, 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

2:09-cv-10910-AJT-MJH Doc # 77 Filed 05/08/12 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 538
Page 2 of 5

not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties and other

persons entitled to be heard on the motion have been misled but also show that

correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.

See Hansmann v. Fid. Invs. Institutional Servs. Co., 326 F.3d 760, 767 (6th Cir. 2003) (a motion for

reconsideration is granted only “if the movant demonstrates that the district court and the parties

have been misled by a palpable defect, and correcting the defect will result in a different disposition

of the case”). “A palpable defect is a defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest or

plain.” Fleck v. Titan Tire Corp., 177 F. Supp. 2d 605, 624 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (internal citations and

quotations omitted). “The decision whether to grant reconsideration lies largely within the

discretion of the court.” Yuba Natural Res., Inc. v. United States, 904 F.2d 1577, 1583 (Fed. Cir.

1990).

Plaintiff argues that his verified complaint establishes a genuine issue of material fact.

Specifically, Plaintiff argues that his allegation that he attempted to send a § 1983 complaint related

to his conditions of confinement, and was twice prevented from doing so by Defendants Potila and

Acord, establishes a genuine of material fact regarding the issue of whether Defendants violated

Plaintiff’s right to access the courts. 

The court first notes that Plaintiff’s argument does not apply to the majority of Defendants

whom the court granted summary judgment. Of said Defendants, Plaintiff’s argument applies only

to Defendant Potila. 

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate a palpable defect in the court’s reasoning. Plaintiff’s

characterization of the complaint allegedly confiscated by Defendants as a § 1983 action does not

create a genuine issue of material fact where Plaintiff himself admits that his complaint largely

consisted of frivolous UCC-based arguments that have been consistently rejected by the courts. This

fact is emphasized by the affidavit attached by Plaintiff to the complaint in the instant case, wherein

2:09-cv-10910-AJT-MJH Doc # 77 Filed 05/08/12 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 539
Page 3 of 5

Plaintiff alleges that he is the “secured party/creditor of debtor Corielle Demont Johnson© . . . I have

a property interest in protecting the property rights of both debtor and the secured party.” Plaintiff

claims money damages for the use of his “copy-righted property,” i.e., his name. The court, in its

previous order, found that no genuine issue of material fact existed with respect to Plaintiff’s claims.

Plaintiff’s allegation that the confiscated complaint also included unstated “other claims” related to

his confinement, without any description of or basis for these other claims, is not sufficient to create

a genuine issue of material fact.

The remainder of Plaintiff’s motions primarily consist of repetition of the arguments

advanced in his responses to the various motions to dismiss. The court has previously rejected these

arguments in its order [75]. Plaintiff has not demonstrated any palpable defect in this Court’s order.

 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Motion for Default

The Magistrate Judge recommends that the court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against

Defendants Sellers and Acord and deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Default. Plaintiff objects.

This Court reviews objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on a

dispositive motion de novo. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(c). Objections must be specific. Frontier

Ins. Co. v. Blaty, 454 F.3d 590, 596 (6th Cir. 2006). 

The court first notes that Plaintiff’s objection applies only to Defendant Acord. While

Plaintiff mentions Defendant Sellers, he does not provide any explanation as to how his objection,

which focuses upon the alleged confiscation of a complaint containing§ 1983 claims, involves

Defendant Sellers. As such, Defendant Sellers is properly dismissed from the case based on the

reasons stated above and in this court’s previous order [72].

2:09-cv-10910-AJT-MJH Doc # 77 Filed 05/08/12 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 540
Page 4 of 5

As to Defendant Acord, Plaintiff’s objection reiterates the arguments made in his Motion for

Reconsideration, discussed above. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Acord are based on the

confiscation of UCC-related materials that have been observed by this and other courts to be used

for the purpose of creating frivolous claims against various government officials. The court does

not accept Plaintiff’s explanations regarding unstated and unelaborated “other claims” related to

confinement in the confiscated complaint. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) this court may

dismiss a case at any time it determines that the action is frivolous or fails to state a claim on which

relief may be granted. The court finds that Plaintiff fails to state a claim with regards to Defendant

Acord, for the reasons stated above and in this court’s order [72] of March 16, 2012. 

The Court having reviewed the record in this case, the Opinion and Order of the Magistrate

Judge is hereby ADOPTED and is entered as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Plaintiff’s

claims against Defendants Sellers and Acord are DISMISSED. As such, Plaintiff’s Motion for

Default is MOOT.

Conclusion 

For the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default is

MOOT. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. The Report and Recommendation is

ADOPTED and entered as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Plaintiff’s claims against

Defendants Sellers and Acord are DISMISSED. 

SO ORDERED. 

s/Arthur J. Tarnow 

Arthur J. Tarnow

Dated: May 8, 2012 Senior United States District Judge

2:09-cv-10910-AJT-MJH Doc # 77 Filed 05/08/12 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 541
Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify on May 8, 2012 that I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the Clerk

of the Court sending notification of such filing to all counsel registered electronically. I hereby

certify that a copy of this paper was mailed to the following non-registered ECF participants on May

8, 2012: Corielle Johnson.

s/Michael E. Lang 

Deputy Clerk to 

District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow

(313) 234-5182

2:09-cv-10910-AJT-MJH Doc # 77 Filed 05/08/12 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 542