Maduforo v. Urban Service Systems Corp.

District Court, District of Columbia·Decided July 14, 2009·No. Civil Action No. 2009-0287·Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IJEOMA MADUFORO, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Civil Action No. 09-0287 (JR) : URBAN SERVICE SYSTEMS CORP., : : Defendant. :

MEMORANDUM

The plaintiff in this employment case complains of race

and gender discrimination and retaliation. She asserts claims

under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (count I, for harassment; count III, for

retaliation), and under the D.C. Human Rights Act (count II, for

harassment; count IV, for retaliation). Count III was dismissed

on 5/26/09 because there is no cause of action under section 1981

for retaliation arising from gender discrimination, see dkt. #9.

The defendant moved for summary judgment 6/25/09 as to the only

other federal claim in the case, Count I, see dkt. #15. Under

our Local Civil Rules, plaintiff had until 7/9/09 to file her

opposition to that motion, or at least to move for an extension

of time to do so. She has filed nothing. Defendant's motion for

summary judgment will accordingly be granted as conceded, and,

since the parties are non-diverse and I have dismissed all of

plaintiff's claims over which I had original jurisdiction, I will

decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over counts II and

IV and dismiss them mea sponte for want of subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). An appropriate order

accompanies this memorandum.

JAMES ROBERTSON United States District Judge

- 2 -

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Maduforo v. Urban Service Systems Corp., (D.D.C. 2009).

Maduforo v. Urban Service Systems Corp. (Maduforo v. Urban Service Systems Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Supplemental jurisdiction
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)