Count VII, the previously discussed due process claim. (See Compl. ¶¶25, 79-86.) However, in Federal Defendants’ view, plaintiff also appears to seek relief against the government in four additional counts. (See Mot. to Dismiss at 2-4.) Thus, Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss sets forth legal arguments as to why they should be dismissed from this matter as to the additional claims. (See id. at 6-11.) Plaintiffs opposition brief fails to respond in any meaningful manner stating why Federal Defendants should not be dismissed as to these claims. Consequently, to the extent that plaintiffs complaint asserts causes of action — other than Count VII — against Federal Defendants, those counts will be dismissed. See Ray v. FBI, 2007 WL 1404445, at *3 (D.D.C. May 10, 2007) (Lamberth, J.) (<HOLDING>). B. Plaintiff’s Motion for Enlargement of Time
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 a party could not use an opposition motion as a means of amending the complaint holding that claims raised for the first time in an opposition to a motion for summary judgment are not properly before a court holding that the court may properly treat as conceded any exemptions and categories that plaintiff does not address in its opposition holding that ajbsent a meaningful opposition  the court treats defendants motion as conceded