MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL

ELLEN LIPTON HOLLANDER, District Judge.

Dear Counsel:

As you know, on July 15, 2015, Monisha Phillips, who was originally self-represented, filed an employment discrimination suit against her employer, the University of Maryland Baltimore County ("UMBC"), and six UMBC employees: Amy Schneider; Christopher Murphy; Linda Baker; Eva Dominguez; Valerie Thomas; and Elmer Falconer (collectively the "Individual Defendants").

On May 5, 2016, the Individual Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 23), accompanied by a memorandum of law (ECF 23-1, collectively the "Motion") and six exhibits. ECF 23-2 through ECF 23-7. The Motion for Summary Judgment argues that "none of the Individual Defendants are Ms. Phillips' `employer' under the meaning of Title VII, and therefore none are liable to her under that statute." ECF 23-1 at 1.

On May 19, 2016, plaintiff, who was then still self-represented, filed an "Extension Request to Respond to Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment." ECF 25 (the "Motion for Extension"). By Order of May 20, 2016 (ECF 26), I granted the Motion for Extension (ECF 25), and extended, until June 13, 2016, the time by which plaintiff could respond to the Motion (ECF 23). No response was filed.

In the meantime, on June 6, 2016, counsel entered an appearance on behalf of plaintiff. ECF 27; ECF 28. On June 15, 2016, while I was preparing a memorandum to address the unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 23), plaintiff filed "Plaintiff's Stipulation Pertaining to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment" (the "Stipulation"). ECF 29. The Stipulation provides, in relevant part, ECF 29 ¶ 3: "Counsel for Plaintiff stipulates that the Individual Defendants do not constitute an `employer' under Title VII and thereby cannot be held liable under same." In addition, the Stipulation provides: "Counsel for Plaintiff further stipulates that Plaintiff's claims brought against the Individual Defendants cannot succeed as a matter of law." Id. ¶ 4. Accordingly, "Counsel for Plaintiff respectfully stipulates that the Individual Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment be granted as to all counts of the Complaint." Id. at 2.

The Motion for Summary Judgment appears legally sound. In light of the Stipulation (ECF 29), I shall GRANT the Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF 23.

Despite the informal nature of this Memorandum, it is an Order of the Court, and the Clerk is directed to docket it as such.