TAYLOR v. CATHOLIC CHARITIES ENTERPRISES, 11-2047 (JEB). (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Columbia
Number: infdco20120302998
Visitors: 11
Filed: Mar. 01, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2012
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION JAMES E. BOASBERG, District Judge. This matter, brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is before the Court on the motions of Defendant Eric Curry to dismiss the complaint against him under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On January 18, 2012, plaintiff was advised to respond to Curry's dispositive motion by February 17, 2012, and was warned that her failure to respond could result in the Court's treating the motion as conceded and summarily dismiss
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION JAMES E. BOASBERG, District Judge. This matter, brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is before the Court on the motions of Defendant Eric Curry to dismiss the complaint against him under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On January 18, 2012, plaintiff was advised to respond to Curry's dispositive motion by February 17, 2012, and was warned that her failure to respond could result in the Court's treating the motion as conceded and summarily dismissi..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JAMES E. BOASBERG, District Judge.
This matter, brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is before the Court on the motions of Defendant Eric Curry to dismiss the complaint against him under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On January 18, 2012, plaintiff was advised to respond to Curry's dispositive motion by February 17, 2012, and was warned that her failure to respond could result in the Court's treating the motion as conceded and summarily dismissing the complaint against this defendant. See Order (Jan. 18, 2012). Plaintiff has not filed a response to Curry's motion to dismiss and has not sought additional time to do so, and Curry has renewed his motion to dismiss based on plaintiff's non-compliance with the order. The Court therefore will grant Curry's initial motion to dismiss as conceded. 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.
Source: Leagle
