Barnes v. US Equal Employment

Filing 6

ORDER granting defendant's 4 Motion to Dismiss by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) cc plaintiff

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 BUSINESS LIC DARENE BARNES, 10 11 Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. 2:17-cv-00083-RSM ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT, 12 Defendant. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 This matter came before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. The Court has reviewed the Motion, all evidence submitted in support of the motion, and defendant’s reply, as well as the documents on file, and is otherwise fully informed. Plaintiff has failed to file a Response or otherwise communicate with the Court in this matter. The failure to file a response “may be considered by the court as an admission that the motion has merit.” Local Civil Rule 7(b)(2). The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that dismissal with prejudice is warranted given Plaintiff’s lack of response to the instant Motion and for the other reasons stated by Defendant in its Motion. See Dkt. #4 at 4-5. 22 23 24 Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 2:17-cv-00083-RSM - 1 1 Therefore, it is hereby ordered that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and all 2 of plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are dismissed with prejudice. 3 4 DATED this 22 day of March 2017. 5 A 6 7 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 2:17-cv-00083-RSM - 2

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?