was discriminated against in his termination by Defendant Melrose-Wakefield Hospital by and through its officers, agents, and employees, because of lawful acts done by him in the furtherance of an action under the False Claims Act, including his participation in the investigation of an action under the False Claims Act and his reporting to the United States Government the fraudulent actions of the defendants.” 29 . A motion to dismiss is not considered a responsive pleading. See Leonard v. Parry, 219 F.3d 25, 30 (1st Cir.2000). 30 . The defendants argue that because Karve-las never moved for leave to amend, the issue of whether the district court erred by denying such a request is not before this court. We agree. See Dartmouth Rev. v. Dartmouth College, 889 F.2d 13, 23 (1st Cir.1989)(<HOLDING>)(quotation marks omitted). However, Karvelas
holding that the question of whether it might have been error for the court to have denied leave to amend is not before us because plaintiffs never requested it holding the district court is not required to grant a plaintiff leave to amend his complaint sua sponte when the plaintiff who is represented by counsel never filed a motion to amend nor requested leave to amend before the district court recognizing that although leave to amend generally should be freely granted that decision is left to the district courts discretion and as in the present case not only was there no abuse of discretion it appears that appellants never properly requested an opportunity to amend in the district court holding that because proposed amendment changed the legal and factual basis of a claim leave to amend must be denied holding that when a district court expressly grants leave to amend it is plain that the order is not final