ORDER

BRIAN K. EPPS, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff, a former employee at Augusta State Medical Prison, commenced the above-captioned employment discrimination case pro se. Because she is proceeding in forma pauperis ("IFP"), the Court screened her original complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e). In the Court's February 11th Order, Plaintiff was allowed to proceed against some of the defendants in their official capacities on a claim of retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"). (See doc. no. 8.) In an accompanying Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), the Court dismissed claims of FMLA retaliation against Defendants in their individual capacities and a claim of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Doc. no. 6.) On March 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding new defendants and a claim of defamation. (Doc. no. 9.) Because the amended complaint did not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a new complaint that contained all of the defendants and all of her claims in one document. (Doc. no. 10.) Plaintiff has now complied with that Order by filing a new complaint that supersedes her prior complaint in its entirety. See Pintado v. Miami-Dade Hous. Agency, 501 F.3d 1241, 1243 (11th Cir. 2007); Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1219 (11th Cir. 2007). Because Plaintiff's original complaint has been superseded, the Court VACATES its prior R&R (doc. no. 6), and will screen Plaintiff's amended complaint in accordance with the IFP statute. The Court also GRANTS Defendants' motion for an extension of time to file a responsive pleading to the amended complaint, (doc. no. 21), and the defendants that have waived service in this case shall have fourteen days from the date that the Court issues an order under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) regarding Plaintiff's claims to file a responsive pleading.

SO ORDERED.