Benbow v. Ingram

• Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
• Decided: August 10, 2023
• Docket: 7:23-cv-00292
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION Case No. 7:23-CV-00292-M TYRANCE DREQUAN BENBOW, ) BECKY LEE LaSALLE, individually, as) heir to Tyrance Drequan Benbow and as ) representative of the estate of ) Tyrance Drequan Benbow, deceased, ORDER Plaintiffs, v. ) ) JOHN W. INGRAM, in his individual and official capacities as the Sheriff of ) Brunswick County, North Carolina, ) JOSH DAVIES, in his individual and ) official capacities as Sergeant of the ) BCSO Drug Enforcement Unit, ) KEITH E. BOWLING, in his ) individual capacity as a Deputy ) Sheriff for the Brunswick County ) Sheriff's Office, ) ALEXANDER MELVIN, in his ) individual capacity as a Deputy ) Sheriff for the Brunswick County ) Sheriff's Office, ) MARK HEWETT, in his individual ) and official capacities as the Fire ) Chief for Civietown Volunteer Fire ) and Rescue Department, and ) JOHN DOES 1-X inclusive, Defendants. )

This matter comes before the court on the Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint [DE 40].! In the interest of justice pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules

1 Typically, a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within the time period allotted for response to a motion to dismiss. Here, Plaintiffs were granted extensions of time in which to file a response to the pending motions to dismiss; the last deadline was July 10, 2023, but

of Civil Procedure, the motion is GRANTED. The court accepts as the operative pleading in this case the Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, located at DE 41. “Ordinarily, an amended complaint supersedes those that came before it.”” Goodman v. Diggs, 986 F.3d 493, 498 (4th Cir. 2021) (citing Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 572 (4th Cir. 2001)). In light of the filing of the First Amended Complaint, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss [DE 15, 18] and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike and Motion to Stay [DE 27, 29] are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot.

SO ORDERED this q day of August, 2023.

J EWM |ysre RICHARD E. MYERS II CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate both good cause and excusable neglect for a third extension of time. See DE 36. Moreover, Plaintiffs have notified the court that Defendants do not oppose a request to amend, but do not provide a “written consent.” Therefore, Plaintiffs properly’ filed the present motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).