OPINION AND ORDER

WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, Jr., District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand's Non-Final Report and Recommendation [20] ("R&R") recommending that Defendant Paradigm Security Services, Inc.'s ("Paradigm") Motion to Dismiss [4] be denied as moot.

On April 11, 2014, Plaintiff Quanesha Coleman ("Plaintiff") filed her Complaint [1], alleging claims for gender-based discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, interference with the Family and Medical Leave Act, and retaliation.

On June 16, 2014, Paradigm filed its Motion to Dismiss, asserting that Counts Three, Four, and Five of the Complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On July 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed, as a matter of course under Rule 15(a), her Amended Complaint [6], revising her claims against the Defendants.

On September 22, 2014, Magistrate Judge Anand issued his R&R recommending that the Motion to Dismiss be denied as moot because of the filing of the Amended Complaint. Neither party filed objections, or otherwise responded, to the R&R.

The Court does not find plain error in the R&R's recommendation. See United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (noting that the district court reviews only for plain error a report and recommendation to which no objection is made). Because Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint, Paradigm's Motion to Dismiss the original Complaint is moot. See, e.g., Sheppard v. Bank of Am., NA, No. 1:11-CV-4472-TWT, 2012 WL 3779106, at *4 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 29, 2012); see also Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, (11th Cir. 2007) ("[A]n amended complaint supersedes the initial complaint and becomes the operative pleading in the case.").

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand's Non-Final Report and Recommendation [20] is ADOPTED. Defendant Paradigm's Motion to Dismiss [4] is DENIED AS MOOT

SO ORDERED.