With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". offers no alternate version of the events of June 12, 1998 aside from the meager factual allegations in the Amended Complaint. Notwithstanding the requirements of LCvR 7(h), plaintiff has not submitted a separate statement of genuine issues of material facts as to which he contends there exists a genuine issue for trial. The Court may and therefore does treat defendant’s facts as conceded. See, e.g., Smith v. Napolitano, 626 F.Supp.2d 81, 84 n. 2 (D.D.C.2009) (relying on defendant’s submission in employment discrimination case where the plaintiff neither “offer[s] a counter-presentation of the events leading up to his non-selection, nor does he contest the defendant’s presentation of these events”); DeMartino v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 511 F.Supp.2d 146, 151 (D.D.C.2007) (<HOLDING>); cf. Stephenson v. Cox, 223 F.Supp.2d 119, 122

A: holding summary judgment was not warranted because material facts were in dispute
B: holding that the plaintiff does not contest and therefore concedes defendants facts in support of summary judgment
C: holding that a district court may not grant summary judgment without giving plaintiff an opportunity to submit materials admissible in a summary judgment proceeding or allowing a hearing on defendants motion
D: holding that docket sheet which stated that plaintiff did not submit any evidence to contest elements of defendants motion for summary judgment when in fact plaintiff had timely filed two affidavits to contest motion could not be used to impeach judgment entered by trial court that stated that court had reviewed competent summary judgment evidence on file
B.