ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

GERALD E. ROSEN, District Judge.

In an opinion and order dated September 8, 2016, the Court determined that Petitioner Eric Lamar Woodley's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence was subject to dismissal as untimely filed well beyond the usual one-year period of limitation for seeking relief under § 2255. Through the present motion filed on September 27, 2016, Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the Court's September 8 ruling on several grounds.

Under Local Rule 7.1(h)(3) of the Eastern District of Michigan,1 the Court ordinarily "will not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court" in its challenged decision. Petitioner's present motion runs afoul of this rule, as it merely repeats the arguments advanced in Petitioner's underlying § 2255 motion and accuses the Court of misconstruing the statements made in and the record accompanying this motion. Petitioner's bare disagreement or dissatisfaction with this Court's resolution of his § 2255 motion does not provide a basis for revisiting the Court's September 8 ruling. See Smith v. Mount Pleasant Public Schools, 298 F.Supp.2d 636, 637 (E.D. Mich. 2003) (explaining that "[a] motion for reconsideration is not properly used as a vehicle to rehash old arguments").

For this reason,

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's September 27, 2016 motion for reconsideration (docket #458) is DENIED.