FILLMORE v. AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES LLC, 15-661 (JEB). (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Columbia
Number: infdco20160121813
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jan. 20, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 20, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION JAMES E. BOASBERG , District Judge . Pro se Plaintiff Brian David Fillmore filed a Complaint on April 30, 2015, against AT&T Mobility Services LLC and CWA Local 2236, claiming age discrimination in relation to his termination from a job with AT&T. See ECF No. 1. The Court previously granted CWA's motion to dismiss, finding Plaintiff had failed to sufficiently make out a discrimination claim against the union. See ECF Nos. 16-17. When AT&T separately moved to dismiss
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION JAMES E. BOASBERG , District Judge . Pro se Plaintiff Brian David Fillmore filed a Complaint on April 30, 2015, against AT&T Mobility Services LLC and CWA Local 2236, claiming age discrimination in relation to his termination from a job with AT&T. See ECF No. 1. The Court previously granted CWA's motion to dismiss, finding Plaintiff had failed to sufficiently make out a discrimination claim against the union. See ECF Nos. 16-17. When AT&T separately moved to dismiss,..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JAMES E. BOASBERG, District Judge.
Pro se Plaintiff Brian David Fillmore filed a Complaint on April 30, 2015, against AT&T Mobility Services LLC and CWA Local 2236, claiming age discrimination in relation to his termination from a job with AT&T. See ECF No. 1. The Court previously granted CWA's motion to dismiss, finding Plaintiff had failed to sufficiently make out a discrimination claim against the union. See ECF Nos. 16-17. When AT&T separately moved to dismiss, the Court instructed Fillmore that he had to respond by January 5, 2016, or the motion would be granted as conceded. See ECF No. 24. Fillmore thereafter sought a one-week extension, see ECF No. 25, which the Court granted, giving him until January 12 to file his opposition. See Minute Order of Jan. 8, 2016. As Plaintiff has still filed no opposition, the Court will treat Defendant's Motion as conceded and dismiss the case without prejudice. See LCvR 7(b). A contemporaneous Order will so state.
Source: Leagle
