The defen dants then filed a notice on Dece m ber 3 1, 2008 , in dicatingthat the p laintiff’s co py of 1 the d efendants’ m otion for sum m ary judg m ent h ad in itially

bee n returned as undeliv erable, and that an other copy

of the m otion was serv ed o n the plain tiff at h is new add ress. N otice (D ec. 31, 2008 ). UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT

F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA J A IM E C A RV A J A L, : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 06-2265 (RMU)

: v. : Re Docume nt No.: 10

: DRUG ENF ORCEMENT AGENCY e t al

. , : : De fe nd ants . :

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION G R A N TI N G TH E D EF END A N TS ’ M OT I ON F OR S UM M ARY J UDGMENT On Dec ember

29, 2006, the pro se plaintiff filed suit ag ainst the defe ndants in the above
c a pti on e d matte r, a sse rt ingthat th e de fe nd ants ha d w ithhe ld m a te ri a l th a t he wa s e nti tle d to
rec eive unde r the F ree dom of Information Ac t (“F OIA”) , 5 U.S.C. § 552. Se e ge ne ra lly Compl. On Novembe r 25, 2008, the def endants filed a

motion for summary

judgme nt, urg ing the court 1 t o d i s m i s s th e c a s e b e c a

u s e ( 1 ) th e f

i r s tn am e d

d e f e n d an t , th e D r

u g E n f o r c e m e n tA g e n c y, proper ly withheld the re quested doc umentation from re lease under se vera l exempti ons established in FO I A; (2) the se cond, third, four th and fifth name d defe ndants (the F eder al B urea u of Investig ation, the Interna l Revenue Ser vice, the D epar

tment of the Tre asury , and the B urea u of Al c oh ol, To ba c c o, F ir e arm s and Expl os ive s) we re no t se nt a ny F OIA r e qu e sts ; ( 3) the sixth
name d d e fe nd ant, the Attor ne y Ge ne ra l, i s n ot a

pr op e r d e fe nd ant t o th is a c tio n; a nd (4 ) t he re is
no su c h e nti ty

a s th e “ F re e do m of

Inf or matio n/P ri va c y

Ag e nc y fo r t he Un ite d St a te s, ” the la stThe defen dants’ m otion also a dv ised th e plain tiff to “ tak e no tice that any factua l assertio ns 2 contain ed in

the declaration s an d o ther attac hm ents in sup port o f defen dants’ m otion will b e ac ce pt ed b y th e C ourta s tr

ue unl es s pl ai nt if

f su bmit s hi s own de cl ar at io ns o r othe r do cum en tary ev idence contrad icting the assertions in the d efendants’ attac hm ents.” D efs.’ Mot. at 1. 2 name d d e fe nd ant. See ge nerally D e f s . ’ M o t . f o r S u m m . J. 2 Be cause the plaintiff fa iled to oppose the def endants’ motion for summar y judgme nt, the court issued a

n order on May 7, 2009, direc ting the pla intiff to respond to the motion on or befor e May

18, 2009, and wa

rninghim that failure to do so could re sult in t he cour t gr anting the motion and enteringjudgme nt in favor of the def endants. Or der ( May

7, 2009). To date , the pla int if f h a s f a ile d to op po se the de fe nd ants ’ m oti on . A c c or din g ly , p ur su ant t o L oc a l Civ il Ru le 7(b), the c ourt treats the defe ndants’ motion for summary judgme nt as conc eded a

nd g rants the motion. An Order c onsistent with thi s Memorandum Opinion is separ ately and contempora

neously issued this 10th day

of June, 2009.

RI CARDO M. URBI

NA Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge