Brooks v. Gaston County Board of Education

Filing 23

ORDER adopting 22 Memorandum and Recommendations; dismissing as moot 6 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; dismissing as moot 13 Motion to Strike. Answer to Second Amended Complaint due within 14 days. Signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 8/21/12. (com)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:12-cv-89-RJC-DCK
SHARON M. BROOKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
GASTON COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Gaston County Board of
Education’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 6), and Motion to Strike, (Doc. No.
13), and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendations (“M&R”), (Doc. No. 22),
recommending that the Court deny Defendant’s motion as moot.
Plaintiff Sharon Brooks (“Plaintiff”) filed a Second Amended Complaint on April 10,
2012, (Doc. No. 10), and a motion for leave to file that complaint on May 11, 2012, (Doc. No.
18). The Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff’s motion to amend and recommended that
Defendant’s motions attacking Plaintiff’s previous complaint be dismissed as moot. (Doc. No.
22).
The district court may assign dispositive pretrial matters pending before the court to a
magistrate judge for “proposed findings of fact and recommendations.” 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B). The Federal Magistrate Act provides that “a district court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specific proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made.” Id. at § 636(b)(1); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir.
1983). “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo

review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in
order to accept the recommendation.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,
315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting FED . R. CIV . P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Where a party fails
to object to the Magistrate Judge’s M&R, the district court may accept, reject, or modify the
M&R without explanation. Camby, 718 F.2d at 199.
Defendant did not object to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. This Court finds
no error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge “that a timely-filed amended pleading supersedes
the original pleading, and that motions directed at superseded pleadings may be denied as moot.”
(Doc. No. 22 at 4).
Defendant shall answer Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, (Doc. No. 10), within
fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1.

The Magistrate Judge’s M&R, (Doc. No. 22), is ADOPTED;

2.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 6), is DISMISSED as moot;

3.

Defendant’s Motion to Strike, (Doc. No. 13), is DISMISSED as moot; and

4.

Defendant shall answer Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, (Doc. No. 10),
within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order.

2

Signed: August 21, 2012

3