Holmes v. United States of America et al

Filing 38

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - It is therefore RECOMMENDED that plaintiffs motion (Doc. 32 ) be DENIED as moot. Objections to R&R due by 6/21/2021. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 06/04/2021. (bjc)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

ROSALIND HOLMES,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:20-cv-825
McFarland, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.

vs.
GEORGIA PACIFIC,
Defendant.

REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Rosalind Holmes’s “Motion For 41(A)
Voluntary Dismissal” (Doc. 32). In a prior Report and Recommendation, the undersigned
recommended dismissal with prejudice of twenty-three counts (I-XXIII) of plaintiff’s first
amended complaint (Doc. 9) and survival of plaintiff’s employment discrimination claim against
defendant Georgia Pacific (count XXIV). (See Doc. 13 at PAGEID 1426). The District Court
adopted this recommendation. (Doc. 18). Subsequently, plaintiff moved for and was granted
leave to further amend her complaint. (See Docs. 20, 27-28). This amended complaint
“supersede[d her] earlier complaint[s] for all purposes.” In re Refrigerant Compressors Antitrust
Litig., 731 F.3d 586, 589 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Pac. Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline Commc’ns, Inc.,
555 U.S. 438, 456 n.4 (2009)).
The motion before the Court requests voluntary dismissal of count XXIV of the nowsuperseded complaint (Doc. 9). Because plaintiff’s first amended complaint, which contains the
relevant count XXIV, has been superseded by plaintiff’s second amended complaint, plaintiff’s
motion to voluntarily dismiss count XXIV should be denied as moot.

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 32) be DENIED as
moot.

6/4/2021
Date: _________

_________________________
Karen L. Litkovitz
United States Magistrate Judge

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

ROSALIND HOLMES,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:20-cv-825
McFarland, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.

vs.
GEORGIA PACIFIC,
Defendant.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections to this Report & Recommendation within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served
with a copy thereof. This period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion by
either side for an extension of time. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report
objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If
the Report and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the
record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the
record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems
sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another
party's objections WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make
objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

3