will grant summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on Counts 4, 5, 6 and 19. ' The Court will deny summary judgment on Counts 1, 2, 15, 16, and 20. An appropriate order will accompany this opinion. 1 . Lane voluntarily dismissed claims against two additional MPD officers. Judge Howell, who previously presided over the case, dismissed Count 8, a Fourteenth Amendment claim against the District. Lane conceded Counts 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, and 18 in her opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion. See PL Opp'n .Mot. Summ. J. at 1 n.l. 2 . See Antoine v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, 821 F.Supp.2d 1, 6 (D.D.C.2010) (deeming an argument conceded when plaintiff did not respond to it in opposition to a summary judgment motion); see also Crawford v. Parron, 709 F.Supp. 234, 235 (D.D.C.1986) (<HOLDING>). 3 . Although Lane’s briefs indicate there
holding postdeprivation remedy is adequate even when deprivation was intentional holding that deprivation of property does not violate due process if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy is available and explaining that state tort actions are meaningful postdeprivation remedies holding that theft by prison guards does not violate due process when postdeprivation remedy exists holding that a deprivation of constitutional rights does not constitute a fifth amendment due process violation if a meaningful postdeprivation remedy is available citing hudson v palmer 468 us 517 104 sct 3194 82 led2d 393 1984 holding that meaningful postdeprivation hearing is sufficient to remedy unauthorized intentional deprivations of inmates property