Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hadley v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals PLC, 18-cv-1068-JPG-MAB. (2019)

Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois Number: infdco20190211a58 Visitors: 12
Filed: Feb. 08, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 08, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER J. PHIL GILBERT , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on the Court's January 14, 2019, order (Doc. 52) for plaintiff Leonard Hadley to show cause on or before February 1, 2019, why the Court should not construe his failure to timely respond to the motion to dismiss filed by defendants U.S. Government Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") and United States of America (Doc. 46) as an admission of the merits of the motion and dismiss his claims against the
More

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the Court's January 14, 2019, order (Doc. 52) for plaintiff Leonard Hadley to show cause on or before February 1, 2019, why the Court should not construe his failure to timely respond to the motion to dismiss filed by defendants U.S. Government Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") and United States of America (Doc. 46) as an admission of the merits of the motion and dismiss his claims against the FDA and the United States. The Court warned Hadley that if he failed to respond in a timely manner to the order to show cause, the Court might dismiss this action for lack of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the Court's inherent authority to manage its docket. See In re Bluestein & Co., 68 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 1995).

Hadley has not responded to the Court's order to show cause. In light of this failure, the Court construes his failure to respond to the defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 46) as an admission of the merits of the motion and will therefore grant the motion. Alternatively, the Court construes Hadley's failure to respond to the show cause order as an indication he no longer wants to prosecute this case. Therefore, as it warned it might, the Court will also dismiss all remaining claims in this case with prejudice for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b) and the Court's inherent authority to manage its docket.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court:

GRANTS the motion to dismiss filed by the FDA and the United States (Doc. 46); DISMISSES this case with prejudice for the reasons stated in the defendants' motion (Doc. 46) and, alternatively, pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute; DENIES as moot the pending motion to dismiss filed by the FDA and the United States (Doc. 53); and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer