Opinion

Ledford v. Bryson City Police Department

Court
District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Filed
Aug 27, 2020
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 24.8%

The opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

ASHEVILLE DIVISION

1:20 CV 168 MR WCM

APRIL LEDFORD )

)

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER

v. )

)

BRYSON CITY POLICE )

DEPARTMENT, CHRIS DUDLEY, )

CURTIS COCHRAN, SWAIN COUNTY )

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, ANDREW )

BRYANT, and TOWN OF BRYSON )

CITY )

)

Defendants. )

______________________________________ )

This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss by Defendants

Swain County Sheriff Curtis Cochran, Swain County Sheriff’s Department,

and Andrew Bryant (the “Motion to Dismiss,” Doc. 7) and Plaintiff’s Motion for

Extension of Time to Answer Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion for

Extension,” Doc. 13).

The Motion to Dismiss, which seeks dismissal of certain claims pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), was filed on August 10, 2020. Doc.

7. Eleven days later, on August 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint

and the Motion for Extension. Docs. 12 & 13.

“A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within ... 21

days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b)....” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(a)(1)(B).

Because Plaintiff has amended her complaint within the time period provided

by Rule 15(a)(1)(B), the Motion to Dismiss is now moot. See Thomas v.

Cumberland County Board of Education, No. 5:10-cv-552, 2011 WL 3664891,

at *1 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 18, 2011) (“Because plaintiff had ‘an absolute right to

amend [her] complaint ... and need not [have sought] leave of court to do so’

her motion to amend must be ALLOWED. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the

original complaint is DENIED AS MOOT, without prejudice to renewal.”)

(quoting Galustian v. Peter, 591 F.3d 724, 730 (4th Cir. 2010) (modifications in

Thomas).

Plaintiffs Motion for Extension is likewise moot.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

(Doc. 7) is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of

Time to Answer Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13) is DENIED AS

MOOT.

Signed: August 27, 2020

W. Carleton Metcalf iy

United States Magistrate Judge eA

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.