# Miller v. Alleghany County Board of Education

> District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 5, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10255807

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** May 5, 2020
- **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/10255807

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-CV-00004-KDB-DSC

KERRY MILLER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
ALLEGHANY COUNTY BOARD OF )
EDUCATION, )
)
Defendant. )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant’s “Motion to Dismiss” (document #8)
filed March 16, 2020.
Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs amendments to pleadings. Rule
15(a)(1) grants a party the right to “amend its pleading once as a matter of course,” if done within
twenty-one days after serving the pleading, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A), or “if the pleading is one
to which a responsive pleading is required,” a party may amend once as a matter of course,
provided that it does so within “21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after
service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B).
The Rule further provides that leave to amend shall be freely given “when justice so requires.” Id.
Although the Fourth Circuit has not addressed the issue, district courts in this Circuit have
held that an extension of time to respond to a motion to dismiss extends the time to amend as a
matter of course. See Superior Performers Inc. v. Phelps, 2015 WL 13650060, *1 (M.D.N.C. May
15, 2015) quoting Hurd v. NDL, Inc., 2012 WL 642425, at *1 (D. Md. Feb. 27, 2012) (“[Plaintiff]
filed her amended complaint 31 days after the defendants filed their motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6). However, because [she] requested and was granted an extension of time to file her
response, the court will consider the amended complaint timely and therefore permitted as a matter
of course”); Jackson v. Merscorp Inc., 2013 WL 12190523, *1 (M.D.N.C May 20, 2013) (same).
Plaintiff filed his “Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint” (document #13) on April
17, 2020 within the extended time frame for responding to Defendant’s Motion. See Text-Only
Order entered April 8, 2020. Accordingly, the amendment is as a matter of course and the Court
will GRANT Plaintiff's Motion.
It is well settled that an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading and that
motions directed at superseded pleadings are to be denied as moot. Young v. City of Mount Ranier,
238 F. 3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001) (amended pleading renders original pleading of no effect);
Turner v. Kight, 192 F. Supp. 2d 391, 397 (D. Md. 2002) (denying as moot motion to dismiss
original complaint on grounds that amended complaint superseded original complaint).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's “Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint” is GRANTED.
Plaintiff shall file his First Amended Complaint within five days of this Order.
2. Defendant’s “Motion to Dismiss” (document #8) is administratively DENIED as
moot without prejudice.
3. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to counsel for the parties and to the
Honorable Kenneth D. Bell.
SO ORDERED.

Signed: May 5, 2020

fr AC ey
David S. Cayer :
United States Magistrate Judge wae

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10255807. Public record. Not legal advice.