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.

Smith v. Fenty

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


January 20, 2010

PHILLIPPE L. SMITH, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ADRIAN FENTY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

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

Re Document Nos.: 11, 16

MEMORANDUM

GRANTING THE DEFENDANTS'MOTION TO DISMISS

This matter is before the court on the defendants' motion to dismiss. The plaintiff filed a complaint alleging various intentional and negligent conduct surrounding his incarceration. See generally Compl.; Order (July 23, 2009). On September 16, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. See generally Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss. On September 17, 2009, the court ordered the plaintiff to respond to the defendants' motion on or before October 22, 2009, or risk the court treating the motion as conceded. Order (Sept. 17, 2009). Although the plaintiff did not respond to the motion to dismiss or the court's September 17, 2009 order, on September 20, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment. See generally Pl.'s Mot. for Default J. The court denied that motion on November 3, 2009, and enlarged the time for the plaintiff to respond to the motion to dismiss to November 30, 2009. Minute Order (Nov. 3, 2009). That minute order was mailed to the plaintiff on November 4, 2009, and returned to the court as undeliverable on November 16, 2009. See Dkt. No. 20. To date, the plaintiff has neither opposed the defendants' motion to dismiss nor provided the court with an updated mailing address.

A plaintiff's failure to respond to a motion to dismiss permits the court to treat the motion as conceded. Fox v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 389 F.3d 1291, 1294-95 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Here the court warned the plaintiff twice that failure to respond to the defendants' motion could result in dismissal of his case. See Order (Sept. 17, 2009); Minute Order (Nov. 3, 2009). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to comply with his obligation to keep the court informed of his current mailing address. LCvR 5.1(e)(1). Accordingly, the court grants the defendants' motion to dismiss. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is separately and contemporaneously issued this 20th day of January, 2010.

20100120

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



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.