STANLEY v. FULWOOD et al, No. 1:2013cv00430 - Document 16 (D.D.C. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION accompanying final order issued separately this day. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 10/16/13.(ah)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DARNELL STANLEY, Plaintiff, v. ISAAC FULWOOD, JR., et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 13-0430 (RC) MEMORANDUM OPINION Pending before the court is Defendants Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. # 8]. On July 12, 2013, plaintiff Darnell Stanley was advised to respond to the motion by August 12, 2013, or risk summary dismissal of the case. See Order [Dkt. # 10]. Mr. Stanley was granted additional time to September 9, 2013, and was again warned of the potential consequence of dismissal if he did not respond. See Aug. 6, 2013 Min. Order. Mr. Stanley has not complied with the orders and has not sought additional time to do so. Hence, this case will be dismissed on what is considered to be a conceded motion to dismiss. 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. ________/s/____________ RUDOLPH CONTRERAS United States District Judge Dated: October 16, 2013
]]>
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.
