MADISON v. COLQUITT COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

• Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
• Decided: January 17, 2024
• Docket: 7:23-cv-00031
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION

LEAMON MADISON : : Plaintiff, : v. : CASE NO.: 7:23-CV-00031 (WLS) : COLQUITT COUNTY SCHOOL : DISTRICT, et al., : : Defendants. : : ORDER Before the Court is Defendants Colquitt County School District, Robby Pitts, Mary Beth Watson, Pat Anderson, Trudie Hill, Doug Howell, Jon Schwalls, and Kevin Sumner’s Motion for Partial Dismissal (Doc. 23); and Motion for a More Definite Statement and Alternative Motion to Strike (Doc. 23). In Plaintiff’s Response Brief to Defendants’ Motions (Doc. 25) Plaintiff moves to Amend his Complaint. In the Eleventh Circuit, “there is a strong policy of determining cases on their merits.” Valdez v. Feltman (In re Worldwide Web Sys.), 328 F.3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2003). Unless there is a substantial reason to deny leave to amend, a district court should grant a motion to amend. Burger Kings Corp. v. Weaver, 169 F.3d 1310, 1319 (11th Cir. 1999). Defendants, in their Reply (Doc. 27) do not oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend his Complaint is GRANTED. The filing of an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See e.g., Lee v. Correct Care Sols., LLC, No. CV 119-012, 2019 WL 5390000 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 21, 2019). As a result, upon the filing of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Defendants’ Motion for Partial Dismissal; and Motion for a More Definite Statement are DENIED-AS-MOOT. The Court notes that under Middle District of Georgia Local Rule 7.1 “[w]here possible, multiple motions filed at the same time, in the same case, shall be consolidated into one motion with multiple, clearly labeled parts and subparts.” M.D. Ga. L. R. 7.1. And every motion filed in a civil proceeding shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law citing supporting authorities. Here, by appending his Motion to Amend his Complaint onto a Response Brief to a Motion, Plaintiff has failed to comply with Rule 7.1. Plaintiff’s omission has resulted in significant delay in the disposition of a relatively simple motion the granting of which will have a significant impact on other motions in the action. Counsel are reminded to comply with the Rules.

SO ORDERED, this 17th day of January 2024.

/s/ W. Louis Sands W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT