Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Carvajal v. Drug Enforcement Agency

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


June 10, 2009

JAIME CARVAJAL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ricardo M. Urbina United States District Judge

Re Document No.: 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GRANTING THE DEFENDANTS'MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On December 29, 2006, the pro se plaintiff filed suit against the defendants in the above-captioned matter, asserting that the defendants had withheld material that he was entitled to receive under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552. See generally Compl. On November 25, 2008,*fn1 the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, urging the court to dismiss the case because (1) the first named defendant, the Drug Enforcement Agency, properly withheld the requested documentation from release under several exemptions established in FOIA; (2) the second, third, fourth and fifth named defendants (the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of the Treasury, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) were not sent any FOIA requests; (3) the sixth named defendant, the Attorney General, is not a proper defendant to this action; and (4) there is no such entity as the "Freedom of Information/Privacy Agency for the United States," the last named defendant.*fn2 See generally Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J.

Because the plaintiff failed to oppose the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court issued an order on May 7, 2009, directing the plaintiff to respond to the motion on or before May 18, 2009, and warning him that failure to do so could result in the court granting the motion and entering judgment in favor of the defendants. Order (May 7, 2009). To date, the plaintiff has failed to oppose the defendants' motion. Accordingly, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(b), the court treats the defendants' motion for summary judgment as conceded and grants the motion. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is separately and contemporaneously issued this 10th day of June, 2009.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.