Case Name: Maureen D. TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jackie CURRIE and Detroit Elections Commission, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-14
Citations: 208 F. App'x 401
Docket Number: No. 06-1183
Parties: Maureen D. TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jackie CURRIE and Detroit Elections Commission, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before: DAUGHTREY and MCKEAGUE, Circuit Judges; and REEVES, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 208
Pages: 401–401

Head Matter:
This case was not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
Maureen D. TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jackie CURRIE and Detroit Elections Commission, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 06-1183.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Dec. 14, 2006.
Hugh M. Davis, Jr., Constitutional Litigation Associates, Detroit, MI, Stephen F. Wasinger, Wasinger, Kickham & Hanley, Royal Oak, MI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Donald M. Fulkerson, Westland, MI, Allen I. Glass, Reifman & Glass, Farmington Hills, MI, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before: DAUGHTREY and MCKEAGUE, Circuit Judges; and REEVES, District Judge.
The Honorable Danny C. Reeves, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Attorney Steven W. Reifman, appeals the district court's order awarding attorneys' fees and costs and imposing sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and order denying the motion for reconsideration. After a careful review of the record, we are convinced that the district court did not err in awarding attorneys' fees and costs to the attorneys for the PlaintiffAppellee and imposing sanctions against Attorney Reifman. Likewise, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the motion for reconsideration.
Because the district court's opinions accurately set out the law governing the issues raised and clearly state the reasons for the conclusions, issuance of a more lengthy opinion by this Court would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court's opinions, we AFFIRM the order of the district court awarding fees and costs and imposing sanctions and order denying the motion for reconsideration.