JOHNSON v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:25-cv-01955-PLF Document13 _ Filed 03/02/26 Pagelof2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BELINDA G. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 25-1955 (PLF)

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively for Summary
Judgment [Dkt. No. 12] filed by defendant, the Social Security Administration (“Administration”).
The Administration argues that this Court should dismiss Ms. Johnson’s Complaint [Dkt. No. 1]
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or in the alternative, grant
summary judgment for the Administration pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Because consideration of the Administration’s Motion could potentially dispose of this

case, the Court advises Ms. Johnson, proceeding pro se, of the following:

In Fox v. Strickland, 837 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (per curiam), the D.C. Circuit

held that a district court must take pains to advise a pro se party of the consequences of failing to
respond to a dispositive motion. See id. at 509. The Court must provide “notice .. . [that]
include[s] an explanation that the failure to respond to an adverse party’s ... motion may result in
the .. . court granting the motion and dismissing the case.” Id. In addition, this Court’s Local
Civil Rules concerning motions to dismiss state that “within 14 days of the date of service or at

such other time as the court may direct, an opposing party shall serve and file a memorandum of

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 1:25-cv-01955-PLF Document13 Filed 03/02/26 Page 2of2

points and authorities in opposition to the motion,” or the Court “may treat the motion as
conceded,” or it may consider the merits of any motion not timely opposed. See D.C. LCvR 7(b);

Hopkins v. Women’s Div., Gen. Bd. of Global Ministries, 284 F. Supp. 2d 15, 25 (D.D.C. 2003)

(same), aff'd, 98 F. App’x 8 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

The Court hereby advises Ms. Johnson of her obligations under the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Civil Rules. If Ms. Johnson fails to submit a timely
memorandum responding to the Administration’s Motion to Dismiss, the Court may treat the
Motion as conceded, grant the Motion on the merits while only considering the Administration’s
arguments! or otherwise dismiss the case without the benefit of Ms. Johnson’s input. On the other
hand, if Ms. Johnson files a response, when the Court rules on the Administration’s Motion to
Dismiss, the Court will consider the facts included in the Complaint, along with any legal
arguments Ms. Johnson makes in her response. The Court generally will not consider facts alleged

for the first time in the response.

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Ms. Johnson to respond to the
Administration’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 12], on or before March 30, 2026. The Court
reiterates that if Ms. Johnson fails to respond by that date, the Court may dismiss this case without

the benefit of her position.
SO ORDERED.

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN
United States District Judge

DATE: 3| a ae