Court Opinion

ID: 9931394
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-08 22:01:22.707048+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:17:34.141254
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

  NATHANIEL CARY JR.,

                       Plaintiff,

                 v.
                                                    Civil Action No. 23-3469 (JMC)
  WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA
  TRANSIT AUTHORITY,

                       Defendant.

                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Before the Court is Defendant Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s

(WMATA) motion to dismiss Plaintiff Nathaniel Cary Jr.’s complaint. ECF 5. WMATA filed its

motion to dismiss on December 7, 2023, which included a certificate of service confirming that

the motion had been served on Plaintiff by mail. ECF 5-1 at 8. On December 8, 2023, the Court

issued an order advising Cary, a pro se litigant, that if he did not file a response to WMATA’s

motion to dismiss, “the Court may (1) treat the motion as conceded; (2) rule on Defendant’s motion

based on Defendant’s arguments alone and without considering Plaintiff’s arguments; or

(3) dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for failure to prosecute.” ECF 6 at 1 (citing LCvR 7(b) and Bristol

Petroleum Corp. v. Harris, 901 F.2d 165, 167 (D.C. Cir. 1990)). Because Cary is pro se, the Court

extended the deadline for his response, giving him until January 19, 2024, to file his opposition.

Id. at 2. The docket reflects that the clerk of court mailed the Court’s order to Cary’s address of

record on December 11, 2023.

       To date, Cary has not responded to WMATA’s motion to dismiss, requested an extension

of the deadline to oppose, or taken any other steps to prosecute this case. Accordingly, the Court

                                                1
will grant Defendant’s motion as conceded. But the Court would reach the same conclusion on the

merits because Cary’s claims are barred and untimely.

        Cary has brought a personal injury negligence action to recover for two on-the-job injuries

that he alleges he suffered while working for WMATA. ECF 1-1. However, his claims are barred

by the workers’ compensation statutes in the potentially applicable jurisdictions, which provide

his exclusive remedies for any claim of workplace injury. 1 See D.C. Code Ann. § 32-1504(a) (“The

liability of an employer prescribed in § 32-1503 shall be exclusive and in place of all liability of

such employer to the employee . . . .”); Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 9-509(a) (“Except as

otherwise provided in this title, the liability of an employer under this title is exclusive.”); Va.

Code Ann. § 65.2-307(A) (stating that an employee’s rights and remedies under the Virginia

Workers’ Compensation Act “shall exclude all other rights and remedies of such employee”).

Because Cary did not respond to Defendant’s motion, he has offered no argument why he should

be relieved from the provisions of the applicable statute.

        Additionally, Cary’s claims are time-barred. His complaint alleges that his injuries

occurred in 2015 and 2018. ECF 1-1 at 1–2. The District of Columbia and Maryland have a three-

year statute of limitations period for personal injury claims. D.C. Code Ann. § 12-301(a)(8); Md.

Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101. Virginia’s statute of limitations period for such claims is

two years. Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-243(A). Cary did not file this action until October 2023. ECF 1-

1. Accordingly, the relevant statutes of limitations have lapsed and it is too late for him to bring

this suit.

1
  Cary’s complaint alleges that his first injury happened at a WMATA metro station in Virginia. ECF 1-1 at 1.
Defendant’s motion includes as an exhibit Cary’s records from the Workers’ Compensation Commission in
Maryland and lists Cary’s home address in Maryland. ECF 5-3 at 1. Rather than make choice of law arguments at
this stage, Defendant’s motion considers applicable law in this District, Maryland, and Virginia for the sake of
completeness. The Court will do the same.

                                                        2
       Because Cary failed to respond to WMATA’s motion to dismiss, and because his claims

are barred and untimely, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this case is

DISMISSED. A separate order accompanies this opinion.

                                                __________________________
                                                JIA M. COBB
                                                United States District Judge

Date: February 8, 2024

                                            3