Arrowgarp v. DOJ, No. 14-1216, 2015 WL 1803784 (D.D.C. Apr. 21, 2015) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.)

Arrowgarp v. DOJ, No. 14-1216, 2015 WL 1803784 (D.D.C. Apr. 21, 2015) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning investigation of plaintiff

Disposition: Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations:  The court finds that "defendants have met their burden, and absent any opposition from the plaintiff, the Court will grant summary judgment in the defendants' favor."  The court relates that "the Court issued an Order . . . advising the plaintiff of his obligation under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of this Court to respond to the defendants' motion, and specifically warned the plaintiff that, if he did not respond to the motion . . . , the Court may treat the motion as conceded."  "To date, the plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion or requested more time to do so."  Therefore, the court finds that "[f]or purposes of this Memorandum Opinion, the . . . facts [discussed in the opinion] are deemed admitted."  However, the court also finds that, "[a]lthough the Court may treat the government's unopposed motion as conceded, . . . summary judgment is warranted only if 'the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'"  The court finds that BIA searched the location where responsive records "'would likely be maintained" "using the plaintiff's name as the key word for both manual and electronic searches," but "[n]o responsive records were located."  Regarding the FBI's action, the court finds that "plaintiff was advised of his right to an administrative appeal, . . . [but] did not proceed."  Finally, the court finds that "EOUSA's declarant averred that all reasonably segregable information has been released to the plaintiff."