The Court, therefore, will substitute the District of Columbia as the defendant in place of defendants 1-3, listed above. See Kranz, 842 F.Supp.2d at 16 n. 1; Waker v. Brown, 754 F.Supp.2d 62, 65 (D.D.C.2010) (substituting the District of Columbia for the mayor, police chief, and Department of Corrections); Henneghan v. D.C. Pub. Schs., 597 F.Supp.2d 34, 37 (D.D.C.2009) (substituting the District of Columbia for DCPS). 4 . In the instant action, because the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, she was provided with an order on December 11, 2013, outlining the requirements for responding both to a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. See Dec. 11, 2013 Order, ECF No. 9; see also Fox v. Strickland, 837 F.2d 507, 509 (D.C.Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Neal v. Kelly, 963 F.2d 453, 456
holding a court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to respond holding that a pro se party must be advised of consequences of failing to respond to a dispositive motion including an explanation that the failure to respond  may result in the district court granting the motion and dismissing the case holding that the trial court did not err by failing to hold an oral hearing on a motion to dismiss an appeal because the appellant was afforded a full opportunity to respond to the motion holding that the district court must find a total failure to respond to the discovery requested holding that district court did not err in summarily granting defendants motion for summary judgment pursuant to local rule where pro se plaintiff failed to respond to motion after district court had warned plaintiff that it would deem his failure to respond a consent to granting of motion