McCoy v. City of Columbia et al

Filing 38

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting in part 31 Report and Recommendations; finding as moot 10 Motion to Dismiss/for More Definite Statement/to Strike; finding as moot 12 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 08/31/2010. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA C O L U M B IA DIVISION J o n a th a n David McCoy, ) ) P l a in tif f , ) ) v. ) ) C ity of Columbia; City of Columbia ) P o lic e Department; John K. Passmore; ) J a m e s Heywood; and Amanda H. Long, ) all in their individual and official ) capacities, ) ) D e f e n d a n ts . ) ) C /A No.: 3:10-132-JFA-JRM

ORDER

P la in tif f Jonathan David McCoy seeks to recover damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1 9 8 3 for alleged violations of his civil rights by Defendants City of Columbia; City of C o lu m b ia Police Department; John K. Passmore; James Heywood; and Amanda H. Long. T h is matter is before the Court for review of the Magistrate Judge's report and re c o m m e n d a tio n (the "Report") on Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 1 2 ) and Defendants' motion to dismiss or in the alternative strike and make more definite and c e rta in (ECF No. 10), made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local R u le 73.02(B)(2)(g) (D.S.C.). T h e magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any p a rty may file written objections . . . . The Court is not bound by the re c o m m e n d a tio n of the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for th e final determination. The Court is required to make a de novo d e te rm in a tio n of those portions of the report or specified findings or re c o m m e n d a tio n as to which an objection is made. However, the Court is not re q u ire d to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal

c o n c lu s io n s of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the report and re c o m m e n d a t io n to which no objections are addressed. While the level of s c ru tin y entailed by the Court's review of the Report thus depends on whether o r not objections have been filed, in either case the Court is free, after review, to accept, reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge's findings or r e c o m m e n d a tio n s . W a lla c e v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (c ita tio n s omitted). The Defendants have lodged various objections to the Report; the C o u rt's review of the same follows below. T h e Magistrate Judge found each of the parties' motions moot. Specifically, the R e p o rt found that because the pending criminal charge against Plaintiff has been nolle p r o s s e d , there is no criminal prosecution to enjoin. Also, the Report concluded that because c o m p l a in t at which the Defendants' motions is directed has now been amended, those m o t io n s are now moot. In the alternative, the Report recommends that the motion to dismiss f o r failure to state a claim be denied because Plaintiff has stated a claim and Defendants have o f f ere d no authority for the positions they seek to advance. T h e Defendants appear to object to (1) the Report's failure to address its alternative m o tio n to strike or make more certain; and (2) the recommendation of the Report insofar as it touches on the merits of the motion to dismiss. However, because "[a]s a general rule, an a m e n d e d pleading ordinarily supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect," Young v . City of Mount Rainer, 238 F.3d 567, 572 (4th Cir.2001), the Court finds that the D e f e n d a n ts' motion to dismiss, strike, or make more definite is moot. See Ohio River Vally E n v . Coalition, Inc. v. Timmermeyer, No. 01-2298, 2003 WL 21259832, at *3 (4th Cir. June 2

2 , 2003) (finding that once an amended pleading is interposed, the original complaint "no lo n g e r performs any function in the case"). A new motion to dismiss is required should a d e f e n d a n t seek to challenge an amended complaint. Because the Court finds that the amended complaint superceded the original complaint a n d rendered any attack upon it moot, the Court hereby overrules Defendants' objections, and a d o p ts the Report insofar as it finds that the motion to dismiss is moot. (ECF No. 10.) The C o u rt declines to adopt the alternative recommendation of the Report that finds that Plaintiff h a s properly stated a claim--the original complaint is no longer of any significance to the ca se and its contents are not properly before the Court. Also, the Court adopts the Report's rec o m m en d atio n to deny Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 12)--there b e in g no specific objection to the Report's finding of mootness. In closing, the Court notes th a t the Defendants have already filed a new motion to dismiss directed at the operative c o m p la in t. IT IS SO ORDERED.

A u g u st 31, 2010 C o lu m b ia , South Carolina

J o s e p h F. Anderson, Jr. U n ite d States District Judge

.

3