From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Coleman v. Paradigm Sec. Servs., Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Dec 2, 2014
l:14-cv-1095-WSD (N.D. Ga. Dec. 2, 2014)

Opinion

l:14-cv-1095-WSD

12-02-2014

QUANESHA COLEMAN, Plaintiff, v. PARADIGM SECURITY SERVICES, INC., NATHANIEL GRAY, and RICK STRAWN, Defendants.


OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand's Non-Final Report and Recommendation [20] ("R&R") recommending that Defendant Paradigm Security Services, Inc.'s ("Paradigm") Motion to Dismiss [4] be denied as moot.

On April 11, 2014, Plaintiff Quanesha Coleman ("Plaintiff) filed her Complaint [1], alleging claims for gender-based discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, interference with the Family and Medical Leave Act, and retaliation.

On June 16, 2014, Paradigm filed its Motion to Dismiss, asserting that Counts Three, Four, and Five of the Complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On July 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed, as a matter of course under Rule 15(a), her Amended Complaint [6], revising her claims against the Defendants.

On September 22, 2014, Magistrate Judge Anand issued his R&R recommending that the Motion to Dismiss be denied as moot because of the filing of the Amended Complaint. Neither party filed objections, or otherwise responded, to the R&R.

The Court does not find plain error in the R&R's recommendation. See United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (noting that the district court reviews only for plain error a report and recommendation to which no objection is made). Because Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint, Paradigm's Motion to Dismiss the original Complaint is moot. See, e.g., Sheppard v. Bank of Am., NA, No. 1:11-CV-4472-TWT, 2012 WL 3779106, at *4 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 29, 2012); see also Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, (11th Cir. 2007) ("[A]n amended complaint supersedes the initial complaint and becomes the operative pleading in the case.").

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand's Non-Final Report and Recommendation [20] is ADOPTED. Defendant Paradigm's Motion to Dismiss [4] is DENIED AS MOOT

SO ORDERED this 2nd day of December, 2014.

/s/_________

WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Coleman v. Paradigm Sec. Servs., Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Dec 2, 2014
l:14-cv-1095-WSD (N.D. Ga. Dec. 2, 2014)
Case details for

Coleman v. Paradigm Sec. Servs., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:QUANESHA COLEMAN, Plaintiff, v. PARADIGM SECURITY SERVICES, INC.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

Date published: Dec 2, 2014

Citations

l:14-cv-1095-WSD (N.D. Ga. Dec. 2, 2014)