Ortiz v. Donahoe
This text of Ortiz v. Donahoe (Ortiz v. Donahoe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JOSEPH A. ORTIZ,
Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 13-2055 (JEB) PATRICK R. DONAHOE,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Joseph Ortiz filed a one-page pro se Complaint on December 26, 2013, which
appears to make allegations regarding a settlement agreement. See ECF No. 1. After Defendant
filed a Motion to Dismiss, see ECF No. 14, this Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to
respond to the Motion by July 16, 2014, or risk the Court’s deeming the matter conceded. See
ECF No. 15. Plaintiff subsequently moved for an extension in order to obtain an attorney, see
ECF No. 16, which the Court granted, giving him until July 28, 2014, to oppose Defendant’s
Motion. See Minute Order of June 26, 2014. As Plaintiff has still not filed any opposition, the
Court will treat Defendant’s Motion as conceded and dismiss the case without prejudice. See
LCvR 7(b). A contemporaneous Order will so state.
/s/ James E. Boasberg JAMES E. BOASBERG United States District Judge Date: August 5, 2014
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Ortiz v. Donahoe, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ortiz-v-donahoe-dcd-2014.