Opinion
CIVIL 21-12022
04-13-2022
DANIEL NATHAN CLARK, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, et al. Defendants.
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AMENDING THE DEFENDANTS [ECF NO. 7] AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 10]
LINDA V. PARKER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff initiated this pro se action alleging employment discrimination against Defendants United States Department of the Army (“Army”), U.S. Army TACOM, John E. Whitley, former acting secretary of the Army, and Albert Wurst, on August 30, 2021. On December 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the Defendants in which he requests to remove Whitley as a defendant and thereafter to substitute the acting secretary of the Army, Christine Wormuth. (ECF No. 7.) On February 25, 2022, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint and accompanying addendum, however, on March 1, 2022. (ECF Nos. 11, 12.) In his amended pleading, Plaintiff names Wormuth as a Defendant. (ECF No. 11.)
As a result of the amendment, the Complaint to which the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10) is directed has been superseded and the motion is moot. See Glass v. The Kellogg Co., 252 F.R.D. 367, 368 (W.D. Mich. 2008) (citing cases). Further, the Amended Complaint adds Wormuth as a party, so the motion to amend the naming of the defendants (ECF No. 7) is also moot.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to amend the defendants (ECF No. 7) and Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10) are DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.