CARVAJAL v. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Ricardo M. Urbina on 06/10/2009. (lcrmu1)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JAIME CARVAJAL, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY et al., : : Defendants. :
Civil Action No.: Re Document No.:
06-2265 (RMU) 10
MEMORANDUM OPINION GR A N T IN G THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT On December 29, 2006, the pro se plaintiff filed suit against the defendants in the abovecaptioned matter, asserting that the defendants had withheld material that he was entitled to receive under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552. See generally Compl. On November 25, 2008,1 the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, urging the court to dismiss the case because (1) the first named defendant, the Drug Enforcement Agency, properly withheld the requested documentation from release under several exemptions established in FOIA; (2) the second, third, fourth and fifth named defendants (the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of the Treasury, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) were not sent any FOIA requests; (3) the sixth named defendant, the Attorney General, is not a proper defendant to this action; and (4) there is no such entity as the "Freedom of Information/Privacy Agency for the United States," the last
The defendants then filed a notice on December 31, 2008, indicating that the plaintiff's copy of the defendants' motion for summary judgment had initially been returned as undeliverable, and that another copy of the motion was served on the plaintiff at his new address. Notice (Dec. 31, 2008).
named defendant.2 See generally Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J. Because the plaintiff failed to oppose the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court issued an order on May 7, 2009, directing the plaintiff to respond to the motion on or before May 18, 2009, and warning him that failure to do so could result in the court granting the motion and entering judgment in favor of the defendants. Order (May 7, 2009). To date, the plaintiff has failed to oppose the defendants' motion. Accordingly, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(b), the court treats the defendants' motion for summary judgment as conceded and grants the motion. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is separately and contemporaneously issued this 10th day of June, 2009.
RICARDO M. URBINA United States District Judge
The defendants' motion also advised the plaintiff to "take notice that any factual assertions contained in the declarations and other attachments in support of defendants' motion will be accepted by the Court as true unless plaintiff submits his own declarations or other documentary evidence contradicting the assertions in the defendants' attachments." Defs.' Mot. at 1.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?