Major Sean Barnett v. Defense Health Agency

S.D. Ohio

Major Sean Barnett v. Defense Health Agency

District Court, S.D. Ohio·Decided February 4, 2026·No. 3:25-cv-00228·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

MAJOR SEAN BARNETT, : : Plaintiff, : Case No. 3:25-cv-228 : v. : : Judge Thomas M. Rose DEFENSE HEALTH AGENCY, : : Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz Defendant. : ______________________________________________________________________________

ENTRY AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S RULE 56 MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 75) WITHOUT PREJUDICE ______________________________________________________________________________

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Rule 56 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Motion”) (Doc. No. 75), wherein Plaintiff Major Sean Barnett (“Barnett”) seeks partial summary judgment against Defendant the Defense Health Agency (“DHA”). The Court orally denied Barnett’s Motion during a telephone conference, conducted on the record and in the presence of the Parties or their counsel, on February 4, 2026, at 10:30 AM. This Order provides the Court’s rationale for said ruling. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that “a party may file a motion for summary judgment at any time until 30 days after the close of all discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b). However, reviewing courts observe “[t]he general rule that summary judgment is improper if the non-movant is not afforded a sufficient opportunity for discovery.” Vance By & Through Hammons v. United States, 90 F.3d 1145, 1148 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing White’s Landing Fisheries, Inc. v. Buchholzer, 29 F.3d 229, 231-32 (6th Cir. 1994)). While Barnett’s APA claim against DHA may not require discovery in the traditional sense, neither party to this litigation has yet had any opportunity for factfinding, much less a sufficient one. Along these lines, the Court finds Barnett’s Motion to be premature. Therefore, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Rule 56 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 75) WITHOUT PREJUDICE. DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Wednesday, February 4, 2026. s/Thomas M. Rose ________________________________ THOMAS M. ROSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

MAJOR SEAN BARNETT, : : Plaintiff, : Case No. 3:25-cv-228 : v. : : Judge Thomas M. Rose DEFENSE HEALTH AGENCY, : : Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz Defendant. : ______________________________________________________________________________

ENTRY AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S RULE 56 MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. NO. 75) WITHOUT PREJUDICE ______________________________________________________________________________

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Rule 56 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Motion”) (Doc. No. 75), wherein Plaintiff Major Sean Barnett (“Barnett”) seeks partial summary judgment against Defendant the Defense Health Agency (“DHA”). The Court orally denied Barnett’s Motion during a telephone conference, conducted on the record and in the presence of the Parties or their counsel, on February 4, 2026, at 10:30 AM. This Order provides the Court’s rationale for said ruling. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that “a party may file a motion for summary judgment at any time until 30 days after the close of all discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b). However, reviewing courts observe “[t]he general rule that summary judgment is improper if the non-movant is not afforded a sufficient opportunity for discovery.” Vance By & Through Hammons v. United States, 90 F.3d 1145, 1148 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing White’s Landing Fisheries, Inc. v. Buchholzer, 29 F.3d 229, 231-32 (6th Cir. 1994)). While Barnett’s APA claim against DHA may not require discovery in the traditional sense, neither party to this litigation has yet had any opportunity for factfinding, much less a sufficient one. Along these lines, the Court finds Barnett’s Motion to be premature. Therefore, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Rule 56 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 75) WITHOUT PREJUDICE. DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Wednesday, February 4, 2026. s/Thomas M. Rose ________________________________ THOMAS M. ROSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Major Sean Barnett v. Defense Health Agency, (S.D. Ohio 2026).

Pincite

Major Sean Barnett v. Defense Health Agency (Major Sean Barnett v. Defense Health Agency) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related