Johnson v. Director of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
ALAN WADE JOHNSON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 15-1678 (BAH)
)
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, ) FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
_________________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On February 22, 2016, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Defs.’ Mot.
Summ. J., ECF No. 10. The Court advised the plaintiff of his obligations under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of this Court to respond to the motion, and
specifically warned the plaintiff that, if he did not respond to the defendants’ motion by March
31, 2016, the Court may treat the motion as conceded. Order, ECF No. 11. The plaintiff
subsequently moved for appointment of counsel, Pl.’s Mot. Appoint Counsel, ECF No. 12,
which motion was denied, while at the same time, the Court extended the plaintiff’s deadline to
respond to the pending summary judgment motion until May 6, 2016, Order, ECF No. 13. To
date, however, the plaintiff has neither filed an opposition to the motion and nor requested more
time to do so.
Rather than granting the defendants’ motion as conceded, the Court instead will deny
their motion without prejudice and dismiss the complaint without prejudice. If the plaintiff
chooses to proceed with this case, he may file a motion to reopen it.
An Order is issued separately.
/s/ Beryl A. Howell BERYL A. HOWELL United States District Judge DATE: May 31, 2016
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Johnson v. Director of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (Johnson v. Director of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.