in his opposition, despite the defendant spending considerable time disputing the accuracy of the plaintiff’s account in its moving papers. See Def.’s Mem. Supp at 17-18. "It is well understood in this Circuit that when a plaintiff files an opposition to a dispositive motion and addresses only certain arguments raised by the defendant, a court may treat those arguments that the plaintiff failed to address as conceded.” Hopkins v. Women’s Div., Gen. Bd. of Global Ministries, 284 F.Supp.2d 15, 25 (D.D.C.2003) (citing FDIC v. Bender, 127 F.3d 58, 67-68 (D.C.Cir.1997). Consequently, "a court may treat those arguments that the plaintiff failed to address as conceded.” Buggs v. Powell, 293 F.Supp.2d 135, 141 (D.D.C.2003); see also Shankar v. ACS-GSI, 258 Fed.Appx. 344, 345 (D.C.Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>) (citing LCvR 7(b)); Schneider v. Kissinger,
recognizing the general principle that a party who fails to address an issue has conceded the issue holding that where parties did not respond to an issue in summary judgment motion parties relinquished any claim on the issue and conceded that summary judgment should be entered against them holding that the court may properly treat as conceded any exemptions and categories that plaintiff does not address in its opposition holding that plaintiff conceded the merits of an issue when he did not respond in any way to defendants argument on that issue in his opposition before the district court holding that when an appellant fails to offer an argument on an issue that issue is abandoned