# Baldwin v. Maiden Police Department

> District Court, W.D. North Carolina · July 8, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10653899

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** July 8, 2024
- **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/10653899

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-CV-197-KDB-DCK
KEITH BALDWIN, JR., )
)
Plaintiff, ) ORDER
)
v. )
)
JAMEY FLETCHER, )
)
Defendant. )
)

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Plaintiff’s “Motion For Leave To
Amend Complaint” (Document No. 24) filed July 2, 2024. This motion has been referred to the
undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is
appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion, the record, and applicable authority, the
undersigned will grant the motion to amend, and direct that the pending motions for default and to
dismiss be denied as moot.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 applies to the amendment of pleadings and allows a
party to amend once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving, or “if the pleading is one
to which a responsive pleading is required, 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).
DISCUSSION
The undersigned notes that Plaintiff Keith Baldwin, Jr. (“Plaintiff” of “Baldwin”) is
appearing in this action without the assistance of counsel. Based on pro se Plaintiff’s motion and
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15, and in the interests of efficient case management and judicial economy, the Court
will allow the motion to amend without further delay. Furthermore, the undersigned will direct
that Plaintiff’s “Motion For Entry Of Default” (Document No. 17), Plaintiff’s “Motion For Entry
Of Default Judgment” (Document No. 18), and “Defendant Jamey Fletcher’s Motion To Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Complaint” (Document No. 22) be denied as moot.

It is well settled that a timely-filed amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, and
that motions directed at superseded pleadings may be denied as moot. Young v. City of Mount
Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001) (“The general rule ... is that an amended pleading
supersedes the original pleading, rendering the original pleading of no effect.”); see also, Fawzy
v. Wauquiez Boats SNC, 873 F.3d 451, 455 (4th Cir. 2017) (“Because a properly filed amended
complaint supersedes the original one and becomes the operative complaint in the case, it renders
the original complaint ‘of no effect.’”); Colin v. Marconi Commerce Systems Employees’
Retirement Plan, 335 F.Supp.2d 590, 614 (M.D.N.C. 2004) (“Earlier motions made by Defendants
were filed prior to and have been rendered moot by Plaintiffs’ filing of the Second Amended

Complaint”); Brown v. Sikora and Associates, Inc., 311 Fed.Appx. 568, 572 (4th Cir. Apr. 16,
2008); and Atlantic Skanska, Inc. v. City of Charlotte, 3:07-CV-266-FDW, 2007 WL 3224985 at
*4 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 30, 2007).
To the extent Defendant contends the Amended Complaint is deficient, this Order is
without prejudice to Defendant filing a renewed motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff is respectfully advised that further amendments are unlikely to be allowed
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion For Leave To Amend
Complaint” (Document No. 24) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint on or
before July 19, 2024.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs “Motion For Entry Of Default” (Document
No. 17) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's “Motion For Entry Of Default Judgment”
(Document No. 18) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Defendant Jamey Fletcher’s Motion To Dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint” (Document No. 22) is DENIED AS MOOT.
The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to pro se Plaintiff by certified
U.S. Mail, return receipt requested.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: July 8, 2024

DiC pe
David C. Keesler “ey
United States Magistrate Judge get

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10653899. Public record. Not legal advice.