MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION

KIMBERLY A. SWANK, Magistrate Judge.

This is an action for "unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, and related penalties and damages" under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-25.1 et seq. On April 6, 2018, Defendant Adriana Navarro filed an answer and motion for summary judgment [DE #15] denying liability on the ground she was not an employer of Plaintiff. On April 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in which Adriana Navarro is not named as a defendant. (Am. Compl. [DE #16].) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss Adriana Navarro from the case [DE #37].

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a plaintiff to amend her complaint once as a matter of course within twenty-one days after service of a responsive pleading or a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Plaintiff's amended complaint was filed within twenty-one days of any answer being filed in the case and is, therefore, an amendment as of right. As a result, Adriana Navarro is no longer a party to the action. See Young v. City of Mt. Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2001) ("[A]n amended pleading supersedes the original pleading, rendering the original pleading of no effect."). Accordingly, her motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff's motion to dismiss Adriana Navarro should be dismissed as moot.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that Defendant Adriana Navarro's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE #15] and Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Adriana Navarro [DE #37] be DISMISSED AS MOOT and the clerk be directed to terminate Adriana Navarro as a party to this action.

IT IS DIRECTED that a copy of this Order and Memorandum & Recommendation be served on each of the parties or, if represented, their counsel. Each party shall have until October 4, 2018, to file written objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation. The presiding district judge must conduct his or her own review (that is, make a de novo determination) of those portions of the Memorandum and Recommendation to which objection is properly made and may accept, reject, or modify the determinations in the Memorandum and Recommendation; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Local Civ. R. 1.1 (permitting modification of deadlines specified in local rules), 72.4(b) (E.D.N.C. Dec. 2017).

A party that does not file written objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation by the foregoing deadline will be giving up the right to review of the Memorandum and Recommendation by the presiding district judge as described above, and the presiding district judge may enter an order or judgment based on the Memorandum and Recommendation without such review. In addition, a party's failure to file written objections by the foregoing deadline may bar the party from appealing to the Court of Appeals from an order or judgment of the presiding district judge based on the Memorandum and Recommendation. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985).