Michael Ryan Barrett
How Judge Barrett rules, drawn from 21 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Barrett
Michael Ryan Barrett is a judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Judge Barrett received a commission on May 5, 2006. Judge Barrett assumed senior status on February 15, 2019.
Judge Barrett's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Barrett, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Trial Procedure (Civil) ↗
- Criminal Pretrial Order ↗
- Discovery Plan (26f) ↗
- Final Civil Pretrial Order ↗
- Trial Procedure (Criminal) ↗
Key rules
Discovery
Before filing a discovery motion, counsel must try written and telephone resolution and request a court conference.
“This Court defines extrajudicial means as attempts to resolve the matter both in writing and telephonically.”
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026).
- General Order 24-02 In Re: Procedures for Requesting, Filing, and Management of Highly Sensitive Documents ↗
- U.S. District Court General Order No. 24-05 ↗
- General Order 23-03 In Re: Automatic Sealing and Procedures for Unsealing of Applications for Search Warrants, Pen Registers, Trap and Trace Devices, or Court Orders Under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d). ↗
How Judge Barrett decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In a civil case, Barrett granted summary judgment on Counts III, IV, and V but denied it on Counts I and II.
“Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to Counts III, IV and V. Summary Judgment is DENIED as to Counts I and II.”
Procedural preferences
In a civil case, Barrett adopted a magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full and denied the defendants' summary-judgment and strike motions for the reasons given there.
“the January 21, 2021 R&R (Doc. 28) is adopted in its entirety and, for the reasons set forth therein, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 24) and Motion to Strike (Doc. 27) are DENIED”
In Osie, unilateral copying-cost demands drew reimbursement and attorney fees because the responding party obtained neither a protective order nor advance cost allocation and ultimately produced the documents electronically. Seek expense allocation before making production conditional on payment.
“Meyer Tool did not move for a protective order, demonstrate that the requested format was inaccessible, or obtain advance cost allocation from the Court.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 9, 10) are DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motions to Strike (Docs. 16, 17) are DENIED”
“Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to Counts III, IV and V. Summary Judgment is DENIED as to Counts I and II.”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (Doc. 11) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 15) is DENIED.”
“Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) is GRANTED and this matter is DISMISSED.”
“the January 21, 2021 R&R (Doc. 28) is adopted in its entirety and, for the reasons set forth therein, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 24) and Motion to Strike (Doc. 27) are DENIED”
“to the extent that it seeks dismissal of this action, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED”
“the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice, with the exception of Plaintiff's unlawful arrest and detention claims against unknown ‘Clinton County Sheriff/Deputy in his individual capacity,’ and those claims are STAYED”
Barrett granted a limited motion to file documents under seal under the local rule and stipulated protective order. The ruling did not address the merits and is excluded from the motion statistics.
“Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 10) is DENIED.”
“the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED.”
“the motion to dismiss filed by Respondent Butler County Sheriff is DENIED as moot.”
“The petition for a writ of habeas corpus, (Doc. 1), is therefore GRANTED.”
“Respondents’ motion to dismiss, (Doc. 17), is DENIED”
“the motion to dismiss by Respondent Jones, (Doc. 15), is DENIED as moot.”
“(Doc. 220) is DENIED”
“his ‘emergency supplemental motion’ based on ‘family circumstances’ (Doc. 224) is DENIED as moot.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Samples from 2021 through 2023 show a Cincinnati docket that includes employment and civil-rights actions, consumer-credit disputes, personal-injury and product-liability cases, contracts, False Claims Act matters, prisoner habeas petitions, and federal criminal cases. The samples are illustrative rather than random.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 27 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 1 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 27 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 27 | 27 |
| Sep 2025 | 33 | 29 |
| Mar 2025 | 31 | 27 |
| Sep 2024 | 30 | 29 |
| Mar 2024 | 40 | 23 |
| Sep 2023 | 25 | 22 |
| Mar 2023 | 38 | 26 |
| Sep 2022 | 60 | 21 |
| Mar 2022 | 62 | 20 |
| Sep 2021 | 51 | 29 |
| Mar 2021 | 49 | 35 |
| Sep 2020 | 46 | 38 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, not for Judge Barrett: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 2,199 | 9 months |
| Closed with no court action | 1,037 | 7.5 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 810 | 7.2 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 343 | 15.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 9 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 2,199 | 9 months |
| Sep 2024 | 2,137 | 8.2 months |
| Sep 2023 | 2,153 | 9.7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 2,311 | 12.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 2,287 | 10.4 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,012 | 9.7 months |
| Sep 2019 | 5,561 | 41.6 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Barrett with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Barrett, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Barrett's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace