BROOKS v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, No. 1:2010cv00848 - Document 15 (D.D.C. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION granting as conceded 10 defendant U.S. Department of Agriculture's motion to dismiss. An order consistent with this memorandum opinion shall issue this same day. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on September 27, 2011. (lcplf2)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) R.L. BROOKS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 10-0848 (PLF) ) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT ) OF AGRICULTURE, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff R.L. Brooks, proceeding pro se, claims in his complaint that the defendant, the United States Department of Agriculture, discriminated against him on the basis of race in denying him agricultural loans in 1981 and 1982. See Complaint at 7-8. On August 30, 2010, the USDA moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that plaintiff s own factual allegations demonstrated that his claims are untimely. On October 29, 2010, the Court issued an Order advising Mr. Brooks that he was required to respond to the motion, and that the Court would grant the motion as conceded and dismiss the complaint if he failed to respond. Mr. Brooks did not respond. The Court s October 29, 2010 Order, which had been mailed to Mr. Brooks address of record, was returned as undeliverable in November 2010. Almost two months later, Mr. Brooks advised the Court that he had changed his mailing address. The Court s October 29, 2010 Order was then sent to the plaintiff s new address on February 28, 2011. Mr. Brooks has nevertheless failed to respond to the defendant s motion to dismiss his complaint. Consequently, the Court will grant the motion as conceded, and Mr. Brooks complaint will be dismissed. See Loc. Civ. R. 7(b). An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion shall be issued this same day. SO ORDERED. /s/________________________ PAUL L. FRIEDMAN United States District Judge DATE: September 27, 2011 -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
