Silberman v. Shulkin, 18-1022 (JEB). (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Columbia
Number: infdco20190403d69
Visitors: 5
Filed: Apr. 02, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 02, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION JAMES E. BOASBERG , District Judge . Pro se Plaintiff Joel Silberman filed a Complaint on April 30, 2018, against several individuals and the Veterans Medical Center, claiming he was assaulted at the Center. See ECF No. 1. When Defendants moved to dismiss, noting Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act, see ECF No. 20, the Court instructed Plaintiff that he had to respond by March 27, 2019, or the motion would be
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION JAMES E. BOASBERG , District Judge . Pro se Plaintiff Joel Silberman filed a Complaint on April 30, 2018, against several individuals and the Veterans Medical Center, claiming he was assaulted at the Center. See ECF No. 1. When Defendants moved to dismiss, noting Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act, see ECF No. 20, the Court instructed Plaintiff that he had to respond by March 27, 2019, or the motion would be ..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JAMES E. BOASBERG, District Judge.
Pro se Plaintiff Joel Silberman filed a Complaint on April 30, 2018, against several individuals and the Veterans Medical Center, claiming he was assaulted at the Center. See ECF No. 1. When Defendants moved to dismiss, noting Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act, see ECF No. 20, the Court instructed Plaintiff that he had to respond by March 27, 2019, or the motion would be granted as conceded. See ECF No. 21. As Plaintiff has 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
