From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ellis-Hemby v. Toatley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Apr 24, 2012
Civil Action No. 12-0052 (ESH) (D.D.C. Apr. 24, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 12-0052 (ESH)

04-24-2012

JERRY ELLIS-HEMBY, Plaintiff, v. BRANDON TOATLEY, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

On March 19, 2012, defendants filed a motion pursuant to Federal Civil Rule of Procedure 12(b)(1) and (2) to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. On March 20, 2012, the Court issued an order advising the pro se plaintiff to respond to the motion to dismiss no later than April 20, 2012, and informing her that if she did not timely respond, the motion could be deemed conceded and result in the dismissal of the complaint. (Order, Mar. 20, 2012 [Dkt. No. 6].) Plaintiff has neither responded nor sought an extension of time in which to respond. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 5] is GRANTED as conceded; and it is further

ORDERED that the above-captioned matter is DISMISSED.

_________________

ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Ellis-Hemby v. Toatley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Apr 24, 2012
Civil Action No. 12-0052 (ESH) (D.D.C. Apr. 24, 2012)
Case details for

Ellis-Hemby v. Toatley

Case Details

Full title:JERRY ELLIS-HEMBY, Plaintiff, v. BRANDON TOATLEY, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Date published: Apr 24, 2012

Citations

Civil Action No. 12-0052 (ESH) (D.D.C. Apr. 24, 2012)

Citing Cases

Jackson v. United States

Ellis–Hemby filed a separate suit against the same three defendants, which was dismissed after the plaintiff…