Clark v. United States Department of the Army

E.D. Michigan

Clark v. United States Department of the Army

DecidedApril 13, 2022

Docket2:21-cv-12022

StatusUnknown

This text of Clark v. United States Department of the Army (Clark v. United States Department of the Army) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clark v. United States Department of the Army, (E.D. Mich. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DANIEL NATHAN CLARK, Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 21-12022 v. Honorable Linda V. Parker UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, et al., Defendants. ___________________________________/ ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AMENDING THE DEFENDANTS [ECF NO. 7] AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 10] Plaintiff initiated this pro se action alleging employment discrimination against Defendants United States Department of the Army (“Army”), U.S. Army TACOM, John E. Whitley, former acting secretary of the Army, and Albert Wurst, on August 30, 2021. On December 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the Defendants in which he requests to remove Whitley as a defendant and thereafter to substitute the acting secretary of the Army, Christine Wormuth. (ECF No. 7.) On February 25, 2022, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint and accompanying addendum, however, on March 1, 2022. (ECF Nos. 11, 12.) In his amended pleading, Plaintiff names Wormuth as a Defendant. (ECF No. 11.)

As a result of the amendment, the Complaint to which the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10) is directed has been superseded and the motion is moot. See Glass v. The Kellogg Co., 252 F.R.D. 367, 368 (W.D. Mich. 2008) (citing cases). Further,

the Amended Complaint adds Wormuth as a party, so the motion to amend the naming of the defendants (ECF No. 7) is also moot. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend the defendants (ECF No.

7) and Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10) are DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DANIEL NATHAN CLARK, Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 21-12022 v. Honorable Linda V. Parker UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, et al., Defendants. ___________________________________/ ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AMENDING THE DEFENDANTS [ECF NO. 7] AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 10] Plaintiff initiated this pro se action alleging employment discrimination against Defendants United States Department of the Army (“Army”), U.S. Army TACOM, John E. Whitley, former acting secretary of the Army, and Albert Wurst, on August 30, 2021. On December 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the Defendants in which he requests to remove Whitley as a defendant and thereafter to substitute the acting secretary of the Army, Christine Wormuth. (ECF No. 7.) On February 25, 2022, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint and accompanying addendum, however, on March 1, 2022. (ECF Nos. 11, 12.) In his amended pleading, Plaintiff names Wormuth as a Defendant. (ECF No. 11.)

As a result of the amendment, the Complaint to which the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10) is directed has been superseded and the motion is moot. See Glass v. The Kellogg Co., 252 F.R.D. 367, 368 (W.D. Mich. 2008) (citing cases). Further,

the Amended Complaint adds Wormuth as a party, so the motion to amend the naming of the defendants (ECF No. 7) is also moot. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend the defendants (ECF No.

7) and Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10) are DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Clark v. United States Department of the Army, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-united-states-department-of-the-army-mied-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack