REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

BARRY A. BRYANT, Magistrate Judge.

Before this Court is Separate Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended and Substituted Complaint. ECF No. 14. This Motion was filed on July 19, 2011. See id. On July 26, 2011, Plaintiff filed a response to this Motion. ECF No. 17. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) (2009), the Honorable Harry F. Barnes referred this Motion to this Court for the purpose of making a report and recommendation. In accordance with that referral, this Court enters the following report and recommendation.

Separate Defendants City of Nashville, Arkansas, Billy Ray Jones, Mayor of the City of Nashville, Mike Reese, former Mayor of the City of Nashville, Freddy Brown, Matt Smith, Jackie Harwell, Nick Davis, Monica Clark, Vivian Wright, Jimmie Lou Kirkpatrick, Kay Gathright, James Parker, Carol Mitchell, Andy Anderson, Mike Milum, and Jerry Harvell filed this Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended and Substituted Complaint alleging Plaintiff `s complaint should be dismissed because it failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). ECF No. 14. However, since the time Separate Defendants filed this Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs' filed a Second Amended and Substituted Complaint. ECF No. 30. Thus, this Court finds Separate Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended and Substituted Complaint (ECF No. 14) is moot.

The Second Amended and Substituted Complaint supercedes Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. See Brown Sheet Iron & Steel Co. v. Maple Leaf Oil & Refining Co., 68 F.2d 787, 788 (8th Cir. 1934). See also Brasel v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 2008 WL 693805, at *2 (W.D. Ark. March 12, 2008) (J. Barnes) (following Brown Sheet Iron and holding that an amended complaint supercedes an original complaint). Thus, Separate Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended and Substituted Complaint (ECF No. 14) should also be denied as moot for this reason.

Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, this Court recommends Separate Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended and Substituted Complaint (ECF No. 14) be DENIED AS MOOT.1

The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990).