With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: 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
B: holding a court can restrict future pro se pleadings if it first provides a pro se litigant notice and an opportunity to respond
C: holding that the district court must find a total failure to respond to the discovery requested
D: 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
A.