Swann v. Akorn, Inc

Filing 26

ORDER directing the plaintiff to advise the court as to whether he wishes to continue with his fourth cause of action against Defendant Interpace and to file a response to Defendant Interpace's 23 motion for judgment on the pleadings within seven (7) days from the date of this order. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, the fourth cause of action against Defendant Interpace may be decided on the record presented in support of Defendant Interpa ce's motion. (Response to Motion due by 12/19/2016. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett on 12/12/2016. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Michael J. Swann,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Akorn, Inc.; Interpace Diagnostics Group, Inc., )
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________ )

C/A No. 3:16-2724-CMC-PJG

ORDER

Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, filed this matter pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq.; the Family and Medical Leave Act
(“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601, et seq.; and various state law claims against the named defendants.
On November 18, 2016, Defendant Interpace Diagnostics Group, Inc. (“Interpace”) filed a motion
for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking dismissal
of the plaintiff’s fourth cause of action—wrongful discharge based on public policy—against
Defendant Interpace. (ECF No. 23.) As of the date of this order, the plaintiff has failed to respond
to Defendant Interpace’s motion in accordance with Local Civil Rule 7.06 (D.S.C.). As such, it
appears to the court that he does not oppose this motion and wishes to abandon his fourth cause of
action against this defendant.
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the plaintiff shall advise the court as to whether he wishes to continue with
his fourth cause of action against Defendant Interpace and to file a response to Defendant Interpace’s
motion for judgment on the pleadings within seven (7) days from the date of this order. Plaintiff is

Page 1 of 2

further advised that if he fails to respond, the fourth cause of action against Defendant Interpace may
be decided on the record presented in support of Defendant Interpace’s motion, see Local Civil Rule
7.06 (D.S.C.), or may be recommended for dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. See
Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

December 12, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

____________________________________
Paige J. Gossett
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 2 of 2