HENRY KENNEDY, District Judge
Presently before the court is defendant's motion to dismiss [#4]. On November 19, 2002, the court issued an order, in accordance with Fox v. Strickland, 837 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1988), directing plaintiff to respond to defendant's motion on or before December 10, 2002.
In the November 19, 2002 order, plaintiff was informed that if he failed to respond to defendant's motion, the court could treat the motion as conceded and enter judgment in favor of defendant. Local Rule 7.1(b) states, in pertinent part, that if a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to a motion to dismiss is not filed, "the court may treat the motion as conceded." LCvR 7.1(b). Time for plaintiffs opposition having expired, the court shall treat defendant's motion as conceded. Moreover, defendant's unopposed motion set out legally cognizable grounds for the granting of the motion.
Accordingly, it is this 1st day of October, 2003, hereby
ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss [#4] is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that the complaint in this case is DISMISSED.