# Burchette v. Brown

> District Court, W.D. North Carolina · September 23, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10254907

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** September 23, 2019
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10254907

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
5:19-cv-00080-FDW

KEVIN DREW BURCHETTE, )
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) ORDER
)
JAKE J. BROWN, et al., )
)
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s letter [Doc. 18], which the Court
construes as a motion seeking general undefined relief.
The Plaintiff filed a Complaint on June 7, 2019, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against eleven
defendants. [Doc. 1]. The Court has not yet conducted initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
The Plaintiff has filed numerous improper documents with the Court purporting to set forth
additional allegations and evidence. [See Docs. 11, 17].
In motion before the Court, the Plaintiff states, in part, that he would like to make whatever
motion necessary “for the Courts too [sic] come to a resolution or disposition of this Civil Matter.”
[Doc. 18]. He also states:
This been said I would like also like too make the Courts aware that
I dont understand why this simple civil proceedings is made to be so
complicated and complex? I have addressed my Complaint and
relief requested as well as provided evidence in support of. But yet
I have to inform the Courts too proceed in order to conduct the
matter in a timely, honorable, and diplomatic fashion.

[Id. (grammatical and spelling errors uncorrected)].
First, as noted above, the Court has not yet conducted initial review of Plaintiff’s
Complaint. The Defendants in this case will be ordered to Answer the Plaintiff’s Complaint only
if it survives initial review. If it does not survive initial review, it will be dismissed. The Court
notes that filing unnecessary documents such as the one at issue in this Order only slows down the
judicial process and takes the Court’s resources away from addressing matters like the initial
review of plaintiffs’ complaints brought under Section 1983.

Second, the additional documents Plaintiff has filed with the Court in support of his
Complaint [Docs. 11, 17] are improper and will be stricken by the Court. Should Plaintiff wish to
amend his Complaint to include anything from these documents, then he may do so in accordance
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court notes, however, that to amend his Complaint, Plaintiff may not simply add to or
correct allegations of his already existing Complaint. Rather, he must make a motion and submit
a proposed amended Complaint that contains all claims he intends to bring in this action against
all Defendants he intends to sue and states all relief he is seeking. That is, a plaintiff may not
amend his Complaint in piecemeal fashion. Furthermore, once Plaintiff amends his Complaint,

the original Complaint will be superseded, meaning that if an amended Complaint omits claims
raised in the original Complaint, the plaintiff has waived the omitted claims. Young v. City of Mt.
Ranier, 238 F.3d 567 (4th Cir. 2001).
Finally, the Court refers the Plaintiff to the Rules of Federal Procedure, generally, as his
motion before the Court reflects a misunderstanding of how this matter will proceed. The Court
does not simply “come to a resolution or disposition with this Civil Matter” at this phase of the
proceedings, unless, when the Court reviews the Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court determines that
it is frivolous or fails to state a claim cognizable under federal law.
The Court will, therefore, deny the Plaintiff’s motion and will strike the Plaintiff’s
improper submissions from the record in this matter.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
(1) Plaintiff's motion [Doc. 18] is DENIED.
(2) Docket entries 11 and 17 are hereby STRICKEN from the record in this matter.
Signed: September 23, 2019

Frank D. Whitney é
Chief United States District Judge ~*#**

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10254907. Public record. Not legal advice.