that threshold. Despite stating that he would oppose the defendant’s motion for summary judgment by September 27, 2010, see Joint Report ¶ 6, the plaintiff had not filed an opposition by mid-October. The court then issued a Fox-Neal order clearly advising the plaintiff of his obligation to submit proof — through affidavits or otherwise — in response to the evidence submitted by the defendant. Order (Oct. 14, 2010) at 2. Nonetheless, the plaintiff responded to the order by submitting a two-page response that did not address any of the arguments or evidence in the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. See generally Pl.’s Response. Such conduct warrants treating the arguments in the defendant’s motion as conceded. See Lytes v. D.C. Water & Sewer Auth., 572 F.3d 936, 943 (D.C.Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, because the plaintiff has failed
holding disability discrimination claim barred holding that the plaintiff engaged in egregious conduct by responding to the defendants motion for summary judgment on his disability claim by describing his disability in a single paragraph without any reference to record evidence supporting his description and presenting a counterstatement of material facts that failed to discuss his functional capacity at the time of the alleged discrimination recognizing the general rule which permits judicial notice of a courts prior cases to support a motion for summary judgment but reversing because in his order the trial judge made no specific reference to the basis for his grant of summary judgment holding plaintiff stated claim in his individual capacity holding disability determination is made at time of alleged discrimination not later when remedial measures are used to correct disability