CARTER v. U.S DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DARRYL C. CARTER,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Civil Action No. 26-920 (JEB)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 	Before
the Court rules on the Motion, Plaintiff Darryl Carter will have an opportunity to respond. 	The
Court hereby advises the pro se Plaintiff Carter of his obligations under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and the local civil rules of this Court.
In Neal v. Kelly, 963 F.2d 453 (D.C. Cir. 1992), the Court of Appeals stated that the
district court must inform pro se litigants that, on a motion for summary judgment, “any factual
assertions in the movant’s affidavits will be accepted as being true unless [the opposing party]
submits his own affidavits or other documentary evidence contradicting the assertion.” 	Id. at
456 (quoting Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100, 102 (7th Cir. 1982)). 	The court specified that the
“text of Rule 56(e) should be part of the notice” issued to the pro se litigant. 	Id. 	Rule 56(e) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails
to properly address another party’s assertion of fact as required by
Rule 56(c), the court may: (1) give an opportunity to properly
support or address the fact; (2) consider the fact undisputed for
purposes of the motion; (3) grant summary judgment if the motion
and 	supporting 	materials 	— 	including 	the 	facts 	considered
undisputed — show that the movant is entitled to it; or (4) issue any
other appropriate order.
Case 1:26-cv-00920-JEB Document 87 Filed 03/25/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). 	Rule 56(c) provides:
(1) Supporting Factual Positions. 	A party asserting that a
fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion
by: (A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including
depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits
or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of
the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other
materials; or (B) showing that the materials cited do not establish
the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party
cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.
(2) Objection That a Fact Is Not Supported by Admissible
Evidence. 	A party may object that the material cited to support or
dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible
in evidence.
(3) Materials Not Cited. 	The court need consider only the
cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the record.
(4) Affidavits or Declarations. 	An affidavit or declaration
used to support or oppose a motion must be made on personal
knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and
show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the
matters stated.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 	Thus, a party, such as Plaintiff Carter, who is adverse to a motion for
summary judgment must rebut the moving party’s affidavits with other affidavits or documentary
evidence; simple allegations that the moving party’s affidavits are inaccurate or incorrect are not
sufficient. 	For these purposes, a verified complaint may serve as an affidavit. 	See Neal, 963
F.2d at 457-58.
In addition, Plaintiff Carter’s attention is directed to Local Civil Rule 7(b), which states:
Within . . . such . . . time as the court may direct, an opposing
party shall serve and file a memorandum of points and authorities in
opposition to the motion. 	If such a memorandum is not filed within
the prescribed time, the court may treat the motion as conceded.
Local Civil Rule 7(b). 	Thus, failure to respond to Defendant’s Motion in this case carries with it
the risk that judgment will be entered for Defendant.
Accordingly, it is hereby
Case 1:26-cv-00920-JEB Document 87 Filed 03/25/26 Page 2 of 3

3
ORDERED that Plaintiff Carter shall file his opposition or other response to Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment no later than April 15, 2026.
/s/ James E. Boasberg
JAMES E. BOASBERG
Chief Judge
Date: 	March 25, 2026
Case 1:26-cv-00920-JEB Document 87 Filed 03/25/26 Page 3 of 3