Stein v. Austin et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
MATTHEW A. STEIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
SECRETARY PETE HEGSETH,
United States Department of Defense,
Defendant.
Civil Action 2:24-cv-990
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Certain Allegations
Admitted (ECF No. 24). Plaintiff contends that Defendant failed to deny many of the allegations
in his Complaint and thus seeks and order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)(6)
deeming those allegations admitted. Defendant did not file a memorandum in opposition and the
time to do so has now expired. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.
Having reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint and Defendant’s Answer, the Court finds that
Defendant has—in most instances—appropriately admitted or denied the specific factual
allegations in the Complaint. Most of the responses that Plaintiff takes issue with are of the form
that Defendant “admits only” to certain factual allegations of a particular paragraph, but does not
specifically deny the remainder. The Court, however, finds Defendant’s “admits only” language
to sufficiently signal that Defendant denies the allegations not specifically admitted. A similar
inference is created when Defendant “admits” certain allegations but does not expressly deny the
remainder. Thus, for the most part, Defendant has not failed to deny Plaintiff’s allegations.
Case: 2:24-cv-00990-CMV Doc #: 30 Filed: 12/17/25 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
The one exception is Table 5.1.1 on p. 15 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. This table lays out a
timeline of the steps Plaintiff took to advance his claim of religious discrimination. Despite this
table containing many factual allegations (e.g., that on “10/03/2022,” Plaintiff “[f]iled an EEO
Complaint within 45 days of discrimination by Submitting EEO Pre-Complaint Intake Form”),
Defendant responded only that the table contains only “conclusion[s] of law and thus no
response is required.” (Def.’s Ans. ¶ 21, ECF No. 14.) The Court finds that Table 5.1.1 contains
factual allegations to which Defendant was required to respond. However, the undersigned can
discern no prejudice to Plaintiff as a result of Defendant’s failure to respond to these allegations
thus far, and the Court prefers to decide cases on their merits rather than on procedural
technicalities. See Teft v. Seward, 689 F.2d 637, 639 (6th Cir. 1982).
Accordingly, rather than deeming these factual allegations admitted, the Court ORDERS
Defendant to file a supplemental Answer, WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS of the date of this
Order, that admits or denies the factual allegations contained in Table 5.1.1.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura
CHELSEY M. VASCURA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 2:24-cv-00990-CMV Doc #: 30 Filed: 12/17/25 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>