The Court, therefore, will grant BOP's motion as conceded and dismiss this case. See, e.g., Poblete v. Goldberg, 680 F. Supp. 2d 18, 19 (D.D.C. 2009) ("A district court may grant a motion to dismiss as conceded based on the absence of a response.") (citing Fox v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 389 F.3d 1291, 1295 (D.C. Cir. 2004)); Bell v. Library of Congress, 539 F. Supp. 2d 411, 413 (D.D.C. 2008) (concluding that FTCA bars claimant from bringing suit until after she has exhausted administrative remedies, and, alternatively, noting that dismissal was warranted where "the non-moving party fails to file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition within a prescribed time period"). An Order will be issued separately.
Under the Local Rules of this Court, a party's failure to oppose a motion in a timely manner by submitting "a memorandum of points and authorities" authorizes the Court to deem that motion conceded. See L. Civ. R. 7(b); see also Fox v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 389 F.3d 1291, 1294 (D.C. Cir. 2004);Bell v. Library of Congress, 539 F. Supp. 2d 411, 413 (D.D.C. 2008). In this case, pursuant to Fox v. Strickland, 837 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1998), and Neal v. Kelly, 963 F.2d 453, 456 (D.C. Cir. 1992), the Court issued an Order on May 22, 2009, in which it warned the individual claimants, all proceeding pro se, that their failure to respond to the pending motion could lead to the dismissal of their claims.