Opinion ID: 2978637
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Premature Grant of Summary Judgment

Text: Molnar first claims that the district court prematurely granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, an argument raised for the first time on appeal. His oblique references to discovery made before the district court—first, his blanket observation that “discovery [was] yet to commence” in his motion opposing the City Defendants’ motion to dismiss; and second, his statement in his motion opposing the Care House Defendants’ motion for summary judgment that “discovery will provide additional evidence”—are not equivalent to raising the issue of premature motions for summary judgment. Molnar could have easily submitted a Rule 56(f) affidavit or, at the very least, objected to the grant of summary judgment before the district court. He did neither, and we therefore deem his premature summary judgment claim waived. See Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. -5- No. 08-2189 Molnar v. Care House, et al. Flowers, 513 F.3d 546, 552 (6th Cir. 2008) (“[A]n argument not raised before the district court is waived on appeal to this Court.”).