Coleman v. Paradigm Security Services, Inc. et al

Filing 26

OPINION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand's Non-Final Report and Recommendation 20 is ADOPTED. Defendant Paradigm's Motion to Dismiss 4 is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 12/2/2014. (anc)

relief can be granted. On July 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed, as a matter of course under
Rule 15(a), her Amended Complaint [6], revising her claims against the
Defendants.
On September 22, 2014, Magistrate Judge Anand issued his R&R
recommending that the Motion to Dismiss be denied as moot because of the filing
of the Amended Complaint. Neither party filed objections, or otherwise
responded, to the R&R.
The Court does not find plain error in the R&R’s recommendation. See
United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (noting
that the district court reviews only for plain error a report and recommendation to
which no objection is made). Because Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint,
Paradigm’s Motion to Dismiss the original Complaint is moot. See, e.g., Sheppard
v. Bank of Am., NA, No. 1:11-CV-4472-TWT, 2012 WL 3779106, at *4 (N.D. Ga.
Aug. 29, 2012); see also Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, (11th Cir.
2007) (“[A]n amended complaint supersedes the initial complaint and becomes the
operative pleading in the case.”).

2

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand’s NonFinal Report and Recommendation [20] is ADOPTED. Defendant Paradigm’s
Motion to Dismiss [4] is DENIED AS MOOT

SO ORDERED this 2nd day of December, 2014.

_______________________________
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3