Jones v. COMSYS IT Partners, Inc et al

Filing 77

ORDER denying as moot 57 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer on 5/17/11. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(bsw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 3:10CV72-MOC-DSC
JENNIFER MARIE JONES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
COMSYS IT PARTNERS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on “Defendant COMSYS’ Rule 12(c) Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings” (doc. 57) filed July 30, 2010, “Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File
Second Amended Complaint” (doc. 61) filed on August 2, 2010, and the parties’ associated briefs
and exhibits (doc. 58, 63, 64, 65, and 66).
This matter was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge on May 16, 2011 pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and these Motions are now ripe for consideration.
Having conferred telephonically with the chambers of the Honorable Max O. Cogburn, Jr.
(the District Judge to whom this case is assigned), the Court grants “Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave
to File Second Amended Complaint”
It is well settled that an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, and that motions
directed at superseded pleadings are to be denied as moot. Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.
3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001) (amended pleading renders original pleading of no effect); Turner v.
Kight, 192 F. Supp. 2d 391, 397 (D. Md. 2002) (denying as moot motion to dismiss original
complaint on grounds that amended complaint superseded original complaint).

Accordingly, “Defendant COMSYS’ Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings” is
administratively DENIED as moot without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.

Signed: May 17, 2011