UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________ )

LAFRANCES DUDLEY O’N EAL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 13

- 0179 (PLF)

)

PRETRIAL SERVICES AG ENCY, et al

. )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On February 11, 2013, pro se plaintiff LaFrances Dudley O’Neal filed a

complaint alleging violations of her constitutional rights by various federal and non

- federal

defendants , in connection with her criminal prosecution for bank fraud. Compl. , Dkt. No. 1 ;

Memorandum Opinion and Order, Dkt. No. 7 (Augu st 9, 2013); see also United States v. O’Neal

,

Criminal No. 11

- 0355

- 1 (RBW).

There is no record that a copy of the complaint has been served on any of the

defendants. The non

- federal defendants, who presumably are unaware of this lawsuit’s

existence, have not responded to Ms. O’Neal’s complaint. T he federal d efendants , by contrast,

filed a motion to dismiss on April 5, 2013. Mot. to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 3 . The federal d efendants

contend that Ms. O’Neal’s complaint must be dismissed for several independ ent reasons,

including failure to properly complete service of process. Mot. to Dismiss at 1

- 2. On May 8,

2013, this Court issued an order advising Ms. O’Neal of the consequences of failing to respond2 to a dispositive motion, and ins tructing her to respo nd to the federal d efendants’ motion no later

than May 29, 2013. See Order, Dkt. No. 4. 1

On May 29, 2013, Ms. O’Nea l filed a motion to strike the f ederal d efendants’

motion to dismiss. See Mot. to Strike, Dkt. No. 5 . Ms. O’Neal’s motion consisted of a single

sentence, and did not substantively respond to the specific assertions made in the federal

d efendants’ motion

.

On August 9, 2013, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order,

explaining the requirements of the Federal and Local Rules and di recting Ms. O’Neal to show

cause in writing by September 4, 2 01 3, as to why her complaint should not be dismissed for

failure to serve the defendants within 120 days after the complaint was filed. In addition, the

Court again advised Ms. O’Neal of the consequences of failing to respond to a dispositive

motio n, and directe d her to respond to the federal defendants’ motion to dismiss no later than

September 4, 2013. Memorandum Opinion and Order, Dkt. No. 7. The Court made clear that a

failure to respond may result in the Court’s treating the dispositive motion as conceded and that a

failure to provide proof of service would lead to dismissal of the complaint. Id

.

The September 4, 2013 deadline s have passed, and the plaintiff ha s failed to

provide evidence of service , respond to federal defendants’ motion, or file anything further with

the Court. The Court therefore will dismiss this action for failure to serve process upon the

1 This Order was issued by Judge John D. Bates. The case subsequently was

transferred to the undersigned on June 20, 2013.3 defendants. See F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 4(m). A separa te Order accompanies this Memorandum

Opinion.

SO ORDERED.

/s/

_______________________________ PAUL L. FRIEDMAN

DATE: October 9, 2013 United States District Judge