COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge.
On July 31, 2013, Plaintiff Natacha Tsana-Sambo commenced this action against multiple United States Government officials in the United States Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security to compel the Defendants to adjudicate her Form I-485 Application to Adjust to Permanent Resident Status. On November 20, 2013, the Defendants filed a  Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, for Summary Judgment. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d), Plaintiff had a total of seventeen days, or until December 9, 2013, to file an opposition to Defendants’ Motion. Local Civil Rule 7(b) also placed Plaintiff on notice that if a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to a motion “is not filed within the prescribed time, the Court may treat the motion as conceded.” Plaintiff, who has been represented by counsel throughout these proceedings, failed to file an opposition to Defendants’ Motion. As of today, the docket reflects that Plaintiff has filed neither an opposition nor a motion for an extension of time.
Based on the absence of a timely response by Plaintiff, the Court shall, in an exercise of its discretion, treat the Defendants’ Motion as conceded. Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, 117 F.3d 571, 577 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (“[T]he district court [may] rel[y] on the absence of a response as a basis for treating a ...