a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the official’s office." Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989); Atchinson v. District of Columbia, 73 F.3d 418, 424 (D.C.Cir.1996) ("When sued in their official capacities, government officials are not personally liable for damages.") (citing Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985)); Jefferies v. District of Columbia, 917 F.Supp.2d 10, 29 (D.D.C.2013) ("A suit against a District of Columbia official in her official capacity is equivalent to a suit against the municipality itself.”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); Kranz v. Gray, 842 F.Supp.2d 13, 16 n. 1 (D.D.C.2012 (<HOLDING>). This order, commonly referred to as a Fox/
recognizing that the allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true on a threshold motion to dismiss 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 pro se plaintiffs should be advised of their right to file responsive material to a motion for summary judgment holding that a pro se party must be advised when motion to dismiss may be converted to motion for summary judgment that  any factual assertion in the movants affidavits will be accepted by the district judge as being true unless the opposing party submits his own affidavits or other documentary evidence contradicting the assertion  quoting lewis v faulkner 689 f2d 100 102 7th cir1982 holding that party may not rely on conclusory statements or an argument that the affidavits in support of the motion for summary judgment are not credible