# Waker v. Brown

> District Court, District of Columbia · March 3, 2011

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2664666

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, District of Columbia
- **Decided:** March 3, 2011
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Judge Paul L. Friedman
- **Nature of suit:** Civil
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2664666

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
)
JOSEPH R. WAKER, JR., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 10-0658 (PLF)
)
DEVON BROWN et al., )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is the motion of the remaining defendant, the District

Columbia, to dismiss the complaint. See Order of December 9, 2010 (dismissing the complaint

against the individual defendants). By Order of January 6, 2011, plaintiff, proceeding pro se,

was advised consistent with Fox v. Strickland, 837 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1988), about his

obligation to respond to the District of Columbia’s motion by February 7, 2011, or risk dismissal

of the complaint on a conceded motion. Plaintiff has neither filed a response nor sought

additional time to do so. The Court therefore will treat the pending motion as conceded and will

now dismiss the case. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

/s/________________________
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN
DATE: March 3, 2011 United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2664666. Public record. Not legal advice.