STANLEY v. FULWOOD et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION accompanying final order issued separately this day. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 10/16/13.(ah)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DARNELL STANLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
ISAAC FULWOOD, JR., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 13-0430 (RC)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before the court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion
for Summary Judgment [Dkt. # 8]. On July 12, 2013, plaintiff Darnell Stanley was advised to
respond to the motion by August 12, 2013, or risk summary dismissal of the case. See Order
[Dkt. # 10]. Mr. Stanley was granted additional time to September 9, 2013, and was again warned
of the potential consequence of dismissal if he did not respond. See Aug. 6, 2013 Min. Order.
Mr. Stanley has not complied with the orders and has not sought additional time to do so. Hence,
this case will be dismissed on what is considered to be a conceded motion to dismiss. See Twelve
John Does v. District of Columbia, 117 F.3d 571, 577 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (“Where the district court
relies on the absence of a response as a basis for treating a motion as conceded, [the District of
Columbia Circuit] honor[s] its enforcement” of the local rule); accord Fox v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
389 F.3d 1291, 1294-95 (D.C. Cir. 2004); FDIC v. Bender, 127 F.3d 58, 67-68 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
________/s/____________
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
United States District Judge
Dated: October 16, 2013