Sims v. Windstream Communications Inc et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 9 Motion to Dismiss as moot without prejudice. The Court will allow Plaintiff to amend her Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer on 9/15/2011. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (tmg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:11-CV-308-MOC-DSC

LASHONDA SIMS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
WINSDTREAM COMMUNICATIONS, )
INC., JENNIFER BUCK, JOSH
)
IMHOFF, ADAM COVINGTON, and
)
SUE INTIHAR,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on “Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss” (doc. 9) filed July
19, 2011 and its accompanying memorandum (doc. 10). On August 8, 2011, the Court notified
Plaintiff of her right to respond and advised her that failure to do so may result in dismissal of her
case. (doc. 11). On August 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (doc. 13) which she
requested to be “review[ed] . . .as [her] response” (doc. 12). On September 1, 2011, Defendants’
filed their “Reply in Further Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss” (doc. 14).
Having conferred with the chambers of the Honorable Max O. Cogburn, Jr. (the District
Judge to whom this case is assigned), the Court will allow Plaintiff to amend her 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directed at superseded pleadings are to be denied as moot.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complaint on grounds that amended complaint superseded original complaint).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, “Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss” is administratively DENIED as moot without
prejudice.
SO ORDERED.

Signed: September 15, 2011