JOHNSON v. LEW et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION accompanying final order issued separately this day. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on 7/19/17.(ah)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JACOB J. LEW et al.,
Civil Action No. 16-1005-RBW
The plaintiff, appearing pro se, sues her former employer, the Internal Revenue Service,
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-to 2000e-17 (2012) (“Title
VII”). The plaintiff alleges that beginning in August 2011, she “was subjected to harassment
based on her race and disability.” Complaint (“Compl.”) ¶ 5. The plaintiff also alleges that she
suffered reprisals for engaging in protected activity beginning in October 2011. Id. at 4-5. The
plaintiff “was terminated effective May 15, 2012.” Id. ¶ 11.
Currently before the Court is the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint or, in the
Alternative, for Summary Judgment (“Defs. Mot.”), ECF No. 11. Arguing that the plaintiff has
failed to state a claim, the defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In the alternative, the defendants seek summary
judgment under Rule 56 “[a]s to Plaintiff’s claim for retaliation based on termination[.]” Defs.’
Mot. at 1.
The plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s orders to respond to the defendants’
motion, and her deadlines have long expired. In an order issued on October 3, 2016, ECF No. 12
(“Oct. 3, 2016 Order”), the Court informed the plaintiff about her obligation to respond to the
defendants’ motion by November 18, 2016, and of the possible consequence of dismissal if she
failed to file her response by the deadline. In that same order, the Court denied the plaintiff’s
motion for court-appointed counsel. See Oct. 3, 2016 Order at 1, 3. By Minute Order issued on
December 5, 2016 (“Dec. 5, 2016 Order”), the Court granted the plaintiff’s untimely filed motion
“requesting additional time to find an attorney to represent me in this case” and to “answer the
agency’s Motion to Dismiss.” Plaintiff’s Motion for Additional Time to Answer Motion of
Dismissal and Request Court Appointed Attorney at 1, ECF No. 13. In that same order, the
Court denied the plaintiff’s renewed motion for court-appointed counsel and directed her to file
her response “with or without retained counsel” by February 6, 2017. Dec. 5, 2016 Order. The
plaintiff has neither filed a response nor sought additional time to do so.
Turning to the pending motion, the Court finds that the defendants have presented valid
arguments for dismissing the complaint for pleading deficiencies. See Defs.’ Memorandum of
Law at 6-15. And, as the plaintiff was advised, the defendants’ unopposed arguments may be
treated as conceded. See Oct. 3, 2016 Order at 2 (citing Hopkins v. Women’s Div., General Bd.
of Global Ministries, 284 F. Supp. 2d 15, 25 (D.D.C. 2003), aff'd, 98 Fed. Appx. 8 (D.C. Cir.
2004) (other citation omitted)). Therefore, the Court will grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss
under Rule 12(b)(6) and will dismiss the complaint without prejudice. 1
DATE: July 19, 2017
Reggie B. Walton
United States District Judge
A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
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?