GREGG v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
| NIYA GREGG |
| TAMIA JONES, MICHAEL URSINY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and MURIEL BOWSER |
| 1:2024cv02960 |
| October 18, 2024 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Dabney L Friedrich |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1442 Petition for Removal |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 3, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
MINUTE ORDER. Before the Court is the defendants' #5 Motion to Dismiss, which was filed on October 25, 2024. Dkt. 5. On October 27, 2024, the Court warned the pro se plaintiff, pursuant to Fox v. Strickland, 837 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1988), of the consequences of failing to respond to a dispositive motion. Specifically, the Court warned the plaintiff that failure to respond to the defendants' motion to dismiss may result in the Court (1) treating the motion as conceded, (2) ruling on the defendant's motion based on the defendant's arguments alone; or (3) dismissing the plaintiff's claims for failure to prosecute. Minute Order (10/27/2024). Accordingly, the Court ordered the plaintiff to file a brief in opposition to the defendant's Motion to Dismiss on or before November 8, 2024. Id.The plaintiff did not file any opposition brief. On November 12, 2024, the Court reminded the plaintiff of the consequences of failing to respond pursuant to Fox. See Minute Order (11/12/2024). The Court ordered the plaintiff to show cause, on or before November 25, 2024, "why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 83.23 of the Local Rules." Id. The Court further warned the plaintiff that "fail[ure] to respond on or before November 25, 2024, or [to] provide good cause for her failure to do so" would result in the Court "dismiss[ing] this cause for failure to prosecute." Id.As of today, December 3, 2024, the public docket reflects that the plaintiff still has not filed any response to the defendants' motion to dismiss or the Court's show cause order. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 82.23. This is a final appealable order. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and to a mail a copy of this minute order to the plaintiff's address of record. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on December 3, 2024. (lcdlf1)
|
|
MINUTE ORDER. On October 25, 2024, the defendant filed its #5 Motion to Dismiss. Two days later, the Court reminded the plaintiff that, pursuant to Fox v. Strickland, 837 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1988), failure to respond to the defendant's #5 Motion to Dismiss could result in the Court (1) treating the motion as conceded, (2) ruling on the defendant's motion based on the defendant's arguments alone; or (3) dismissing the plaintiff's claims for failure to prosecute. See Minute Order of October 27, 2024. As of today, however, the docket reflects that the plaintiff has not filed any response to the #5 Motion to Dismiss, nor has she sought an extension of time to do so. Accordingly, the plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, on or before November 25, 2024, why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 83.23 of the Local Rules. If the plaintiff fails to respond on or before November 25, 2024, or provide good cause for her failure to do so, the Court will dismiss this case for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Minute Order to the plaintiff's address of record. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on November 12, 2024. (lcdlf1)
|
|
MINUTE ORDER. Pursuant to Fox v. Strickland, 837 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1988), the plaintiff is advised that failure to respond to the defendant's pending #5 Motion to Dismiss by November 8, 2024, may result in the Court (1) treating the motion as conceded, (2) ruling on the defendant's motion based on the defendant's arguments alone; or (3) dismissing the plaintiff's claims for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Minute Order to the plaintiff's address of record. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on October 27, 2024. (lcdlf1)
|
| Filing 5 MOTION to Dismiss by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Jones, Sian) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Sian Jones on behalf of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Jones, Sian) |
|
Filing 3
STANDARD ORDER for Civil Cases. See text for details. Signed by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on October 23, 2024. (lcdlf1)
|
| Filing 2 NOTICE to Counsel/Party re #1 Notice of Removal, (Attachment: #1 Notice and Consent)(zsl) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Dabney L. Friedrich. (zsl) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from United States Superior Court for the District of Columbia, case number 2024 CAB 005439 (Fee Status:Filing Fee Waived) filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, c/o U.S. Attorneys Office. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Civil Cover Sheet)(Jones, Sian) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the District Of Columbia District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
