Case Name: Imani A. MAHDI, Plaintiff, v. Patrick J. MURPHY, Defendant
Court: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-21
Citations: 224 F. Supp. 3d 47
Docket Number: Civil Action No. 16-1093-CRC
Parties: Imani A. MAHDI, Plaintiff, v. Patrick J. MURPHY, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Supplement 3d
Volume: 224
Pages: 47–48

Head Matter:
Imani A. MAHDI, Plaintiff, v. Patrick J. MURPHY, Defendant.
Civil Action No. 16-1093-CRC
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
Signed 12/21/2016
Imani A. Mahdi, Washington, DC, pro se.
Derrick Wayne Grace, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER, United States District Judge
This matter, brought pro se under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) for improper venue and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff has not complied with the order to respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss by November 7, 2016. See Oct. 3, 2016 Order [EOF No. 9]. Therefore, the Court finds Defendant's arguments for dismissal to be conceded. See generally Def.'s Mem. in Support of Mot. to Dismiss.
Title VH's venue provision requires such actions to be brought in the judicial dis trict in the State where (1) the unlawful employment practice is alleged to have occurred; (2) the relevant employment records are maintained and administered; or (3) the plaintiff would have worked but for the alleged unlawful practice. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e—5 (f) (3). If the defendant "is not found within any such district," the action may be brought in the judicial district in the State where defendant's principal office is located. Id.
It is clear from the allegations in the complaint that this action arose from Plaintiffs employment in Fort Belvoir, Virginia, which is also the location of Defendant's principal office. See Def.'s Mem. at 6. Given Plaintiffs inaction, the interests of justice would not be served by transferring this case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Therefore, the Court will grant Defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(3) and dismiss the case without prejudice. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.