El-Bey v. Menefee

Full title: WALTER-EL ALKEMET SHAKUR EL-BEY, Plaintiff, v. ALFONZA MENEFEE, et al.…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION

Date published: Aug 5, 2014

CIVIL ACT. NO. 3:14-CV-47-WKW (WO) (M.D. Ala. Aug. 5, 2014)

Opinion

CIVIL ACT. NO. 3:14-CV-47-WKW (WO)

08-05-2014

WALTER-EL ALKEMET SHAKUR EL-BEY, Plaintiff, v. ALFONZA MENEFEE, et al., Defendants.

CHARLES S. COODY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the court is Defendant Alfonza Menefee's motion to dismiss the original complaint or, in the alternative, motion for more definite statement. (Doc. 29).

On August 1, 2014, Plaintiff Walter-EL Alkemet Shakur EL-Bey filed an amended complaint (Doc. 40), which supersedes the original complaint. See Ritey v. Fairbanks Capital Corp., 222 Fed. Appx. 897, 888 (11th Cir. 2007) (applying the rule that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint to a pro se complaint filed pursuant to the order of a magistrate judge requiring the plaintiff to state her claims with sufficient particularity).

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE that Defendant Alfonza Menefee's motion to dismiss the original complaint or, in the alternative, motion for more definite statement (Doc. 29) be denied as moot.

It is further

ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to the said Recommendation on or before August 19, 2014. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982); see Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982); see also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc) (adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981).

Done this 5th day of August, 2014.

/s/Charles S. Coody

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE