Allyson Greenroyd v. Michelle Shelton, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

ALLYSON GREENROYD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. CIV-25-1299-R ) MICHELLE SHELTON, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

Before the Court are several Motions to Dismiss [Doc. Nos. 20, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29] Plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. No. 1]. During the pendency of the Motions, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 30]. This Amended Complaint “supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect.” Davis v. TXO Prod. Corp., 929 F.2d 1515, 1517 (10th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation omitted). Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss [Doc. Nos. 20, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29] are therefore DENIED without prejudice to resubmission, if appropriate. Also before the Court are two Motions to Clarify [Doc. Nos. 21, 25] what Plaintiff seeks with her filings Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 4], Supplement to Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 13], Motion for Preservation Order and for Expedited, Targeted Discovery [Doc. No. 14], and Notice Clarifying Scope of Relief [Doc. No. 15]. Plaintiff has since filed a Voluntary Notice of Withdrawal of Doc. Nos. 4, 13, 14, and 15 [Doc. No. 31] pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which states that a Plaintiff may “dismiss an action without a court order... before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” Though she cites Rule 41, Plaintiff does not appear to seek dismissal of this action. The Court instead construes her Voluntary Notice of Withdrawal as merely withdrawing the Motions and other filings listed in her Notice and accordingly, Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 4] and Motion for Preservation Order and for Expedited, Targeted Discovery [Doc. No. 14] are DENIED as MOOT. Defendants’ Motions to Clarify [Doc. Nos. 21, 25] are also DENIED as MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED this 18" day of February, 2026.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE