ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF #29) AND PETITION TO AMEND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF #30)

MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, District Judge.

In this action, Plaintiff Russell Hankins, an inmate in the Michigan Department of Corrections, asserted claims under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments against Defendants John Woodard and Mark Tenniswood, two MDOC employees.

On February 27, 2017, the Defendants moved for summary judgment on Hankin's claims. (See ECF #19.) The assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she suggested that the Court grant the motion (the "R&R"). (See ECF #25.) The Magistrate Judge also recommended that the Court deny Hankins' motion for preliminary injunction. (See id.) Hankins filed objections to the R&R. (See ECF #26.) On September 25, 2017, the Court entered an order in which it (1) overruled Hankins' objections to the R&R, (2) granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, and (3) denied Hankins' motion for preliminary injunction (the "Order"). (See ECF #27.) On that day, the Court entered judgment in favor of the Defendants. (See ECF #28.)

On October 18, 2017, Hankins filed a motion for reconsideration directed at the Order and judgment in favor of the Defendants. (See ECF #29.) Hankins thereafter filed a petition to amend his motion for reconsideration and requested that the Court grant reconsideration of the Order. (See ECF #30.)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Hankins' motion for reconsideration and petition to amend his motion for reconsideration (ECF ## 29, 30) are DENIED because Hankins has failed to demonstrate a palpable defect by which the Court and the parties have been misled and/or that correcting any such defect, if one existed, would result in a different disposition. See Local Rule 7.1(h).

IT IS SO ORDERED.