ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION (DKTS. 25 & 26)

TERRENCE G. BERG, District Judge.

This is a case challenging a foreclosure following a default on a mortgage. On February 7, 2014, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss, and dismissed this case with prejudice (Dkt. 23). On February 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed a "discovery demand" (Dkt. 25) and on March 13, 2014, Plaintiff filed an "affidavit of recording" (Dkt. 26). In these pleadings, Plaintiff raises many of the same arguments that she raised in response to Defendants' motion to dismiss. As such, the Court will treat these filings as motions for reconsideration.

Pursuant to E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(g)(3) "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." A motion for reconsideration is only proper if the movant shows that the court and the parties were misled by a "palpable defect." E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(g)(3). A "palpable defect" is a "defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain." Olson v. The Home Depot, 321 F.Supp.2d 872, 874 (E.D. Mich. 2004). The movant must also demonstrate that the disposition of the case would be different if the palpable defect were cured. See E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(g)(3).

Plaintiff's most recent filings have not shown any "palpable defect," sufficient to cause the Court to reconsider its prior ruling. Rather, Plaintiff merely repeats the same arguments that the Court has already rejected. Accordingly, the Court will not revisit its prior ruling, and will not re-open this case. This case is closed. If Plaintiff wishes to challenge the Court's dismissal of her case, the proper course is to file an appeal with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. See Fed. R. App. P.

3. If Plaintiff files further pleadings in this case, they will be stricken from the docket.

SO ORDERED.