United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division, Dayton
M. Rose, District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION  THAT: (1)
PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO CLARIFY (DOC. 18, 19) BE DENIED
(DOC. 19); AND (2) THIS CASE REMAIN TERMINATED ON THE
Michael J. Newman, United States Magistrate Judge
civil case is before the Court on pro se
Plaintiff's motion to clarify purportedly filed pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a). Docs. 18, 19. Defendants did not file
memoranda in opposition to pro se Plaintiff's
motion, and the time for doing so has expired. The
undersigned has carefully reviewed pro se
Plaintiffs' motions, and they are now ripe for decision.
filed his original pro se complaint on July 5, 2017.
Doc. 1-2. On September 26, 2017, Defendant AI Automotive
Group Systems filed a motion to dismiss the original
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1)(B), pro se
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 6, 2017. Doc.
9. “An amended complaint supersedes the original
pleading” and, therefore, motions seeking dismissal of
an original complaint are generally moot following the filing
of an amended complaint.” O'Malley v. NaphCare,
Inc., No. 3:12-CV-326, 2013 WL 1438028, at *2 (S.D. Ohio
Apr. 9, 2013) (citing Yates v. Applied Performance
Techs., Inc., 205 F.R.D. 497, 499 (S.D.Ohio 2002)).
pro se Plaintiff's filing of his amended
complaint, Defendant AI Automotive Group Systems filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Doc. 10. On November
21, 2017, the Court: (1) adopted the undersigned's Report
and Recommendation (doc. 12); (2) denied Defendant's
original motion to dismiss (doc. 8) as moot; (3) granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint (doc.
10); (4) dismissed pro se Plaintiff's amended
complaint (doc. 9); and (5) terminated the case on the
Court's docket. Doc. 15.
se Plaintiff now seeks relief under Fed. R. 60(a),
arguing that the Court's order is confusing. Docs. 18,
Pursuant to Rule 60(a), “[t]he court may correct a
clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or
omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other
part of the record.” Finding no mistake in the
Court's Order (doc. 15), the undersigned
RECOMMENDS that pro se
Plaintiff's motions (docs. 18, 19) be
DENIED and that this case remain
TERMINATED on the Court's docket.
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific,
written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations within FOURTEEN days after
being served with this Report and Recommendation. This period
is not extended by virtue of Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d) if served on
you by electronic means, such as via the Court's CM/ECF
filing system. If, however, this Report and Recommendation
was served upon you by mail, this deadline is extended to
SEVENTEEN DAYS by application of
Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d). Parties may seek an extension of the
deadline to file objections by filing a motion for extension,
which the Court may grant upon a showing of good cause.
objections filed shall specify the portions of the Report and
Recommendation objected to, and shall be accompanied by a
memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report
and Recommendation is based, in whole or in part, upon
matters occurring of record at an oral hearing, the objecting
party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the
record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree upon
or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned
District Judge otherwise directs.
may respond to another party's objections within
FOURTEEN days after being served with a copy
thereof. As noted above, this period is not extended by
virtue of Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d) if served on you by electronic
means, such as via the Court's CM/ECF filing system. If,
however, this Report and Recommendation was served upon you
by mail, this deadline is extended to SEVENTEEN
DAYS by application of Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d).
to make objections in accordance with this procedure may
forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985); United States v. Walters,
638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).