Opinion
Civil Action 2:23-cv-00038
01-24-2024
NATHANIEL LEE ADKINS, Plaintiff, v. CAMRYN T. DANIELS, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
JOSEPH R. GOODWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss filed by Eddy Arthur, Danville Police Department, and Town of Danville (“Moving Defendants”). [ECF No. 16]. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is DENIED as moot.
On May 12, 2023, Moving Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's original Complaint. [ECF No. 1]. On June 23, 2023, Plaintiff timely filed his Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 21], pursuant to the Scheduling Order entered on May 31, 2023, [ECF No. 20].
“As a general rule, ‘an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, rendering the original pleading of no effect.” White v. Turner, 671 Fed.Appx. 162, 163 (4th Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (quoting Young v. City of Mt. Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 572 (4th Cir. 2001)). When a plaintiff amends a complaint while a motion to dismiss is pending, a court may deny the motion as moot. See Turner v. Kight, 192 F.Supp.2d 391, 397 (D. Md. 2002) (denying the motion to dismiss the original complaint as moot because the original complaint was superseded by the amended complaint); see also Sennott v. Adams, No. 6:13-cv-02813-GRA, 2014 WL 2434745, at *3 (D.S.C. May 29, 2014) (“[A] defendant's previous motion to dismiss is rendered moot when a plaintiff files an amended complaint.”); Skibbe v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., No. 2:08-cv-01393, 2014 WL 2117088, at *3 (S.D. W.Va. May 21, 2014) (denying as moot defendants' renewed motion to dismiss where “[t]he Third Amended Complaint superseded the Amended Complaint and the Second Amended Complaint”). Here, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint superseded his original Complaint. Accordingly, Moving Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 16], is DENIED as moot.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.