*1 This matter is before the Court upon two motions: 1) Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery responses and impose sanctions (Docket Entry 41); and 2) Defendants’ motion for an extension of time to complete discovery (Docket Entry 43). Per the Court's scheduling order, the original discovery deadline in this case was originally set at July 23, 2021. (Docket Entry 37.) A hearing was held in this matter before the undersigned on July 26, 2021. (See Minute Entry dated 07/26/2021.)

In his motion, Plaintiff states that he served discovery requests upon Defendants on May 3, 2021 and May 24, 2021, but Defendants failed to respond. (Docket Entry 41 at 1.) Plaintiff notified Defendants by letter in early June 7, 2021 that he had not yet received discovery responses and instructed Defendants to respond within fourteen days, which they failed to do. (Id. at 2.) As such, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants to respond to his requests and seeks sanctions against them for failure to comply with his discovery requests. (See generally id.)

On July 16, 2021, Defendants filed their motion for an extension of time to complete discovery and file dispositive motions. (Docket Entry 43.) In their motion, Defendants note several points: 1) defense counsel is new to the North Carolina Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and needs time to familiarize himself with the instant action; 2) Defendants Moore, Jones, and Whichard (who were named in the original complaint) were omitted from the amended pleadings and newly added Defendant Sullivan has not been served; 3) Defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint and included with it a motion to dismiss Defendants Moore, Jones, and Whichard pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and to dismiss Defendant Sullivan pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2) and (5) for lack of service; 4) Defendants plan to object to having to respond to discovery as there are no viable defendants; 5) Defendants plan to produce some discovery; and 6) Defendants intend to give notice prior to August 1, 2021 of filing another motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), (5), and (6). (See generally id.) Defendants thereafter filed a response to Plaintiff's motion to compel raising many of these same points. (Docket Entry 45.) Defendants also explained that they failed to timely respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests due to “a calendaring error and lack of communication among DOJ staff.” (Id. at 2.)

First, while the Court is aware that a properly filed amended complaint generally supersedes the original complaint and “renders it of no legal effect,” Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 572 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal quotations and citation omitted), based on Plaintiff's representations at the hearing, it is abundantly clear that Plaintiff did not intend to dismiss Defendants Moore, Jones, and Whichard from this action. In filing his proposed amended complaint, Plaintiff intended only to add Defendant Sullivan as an additional defendant. Therefore, in the interests of justice and considering Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court will order that the “Amended Complaint” (Docket Entries 32-1, 35) be treated as a supplement to Plaintiff's original complaint going forward. (Docket Entry 1.) However, given the Court's prior order (Docket Entry 34), the Court is aware that Defendants have not answered the allegations in the original complaint. As such Defendants shall have two weeks to file a supplemental answer.

*2 Second, the motion to dismiss that Defendants included with the answer they filed on February 22, 2021 (Docket Entry 36) did not include a brief, as is required by this Court's local rules. See MDNC L.R. 7.3(a) (“All motions, unless made during a hearing or at trial, shall be in writing and shall be accompanied by a brief except as provided in section (j) of this rule. Each motion shall be set out in a separate pleading.”). Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss was never properly before the Court, and Defendants Moore, Jones, Whichard, and Sullivan all remain parties to this action. At this juncture, Defendants should anticipate raising any arguments for dismissal in their upcoming dispositive motion. The undersigned also notes that while Defendant Sullivan's lack of service is mentioned repeatedly in Defendants’ filings (see Docket Entry 43 at 3; Docket Entry 45 at 9-10), such lack of service is unlikely to be a prevailing argument for dismissal. See Elkins v. Broome, 213 F.R.D. 273, 275 (M.D.N.C. 2003) (citation omitted) (“In determining whether the plaintiff has satisfied his burden [of demonstrating proper service], the technical requirements of service should be construed liberally as long as the defendant had actual notice of the pending suit.”); see also Thomas v. Nelms, No. 1:09-CV-491, 2013 WL 593419, at *1 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 14, 2013) (unpublished) (“When service is ineffective, the Court has discretion to dismiss the action or quash service.”).

Third, the Court understands the need for additional time for Defendants’ newly appointed counsel to review the facts and history of this case. However, the Court must consider counsel's needs in conjunction with the undersigned's duty to effectively manage the Court's docket. As such, the Court will extend the discovery deadline until August 23, 2021 but will set the dispositive motions deadline for September 13, 2021.

Finally, the undersigned addresses Plaintiff's motion to compel and impose sanctions. Counsel for Defendants indicated at the hearing that on the afternoon of Friday, July 23, 2021 he sent Plaintiff approximately 1,000 pages of discovery responses via first class mail that included medical records and policy documents. Defendants may need to supplement their discovery responses further considering the Court's orders herein. If upon receipt of Defendants’ discovery responses Plaintiff discovers deficiencies, he is encouraged to confer with counsel for Defendants to resolve any such issues. For these reasons and in light of the Court's extension of the discovery deadline until August 23, 2021, the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion without prejudice at this time.

For the reasons stated herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's “Amended Complaint” (Docket Entries 32-1, 35) shall operate as a supplement to Plaintiff's original complaint. (Docket Entry 1.) Defendants shall have up to and including August 9, 2021 to file a supplemental answer.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for an extension of time to complete discovery (Docket Entry 43) is GRANTED IN PART. All parties shall have up to and including August 23, 2021 to complete discovery and shall have up to and including September 13, 2021 to file their dispositive motions and supporting materials.

Therefore, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery responses (Docket Entry 41) is DENIED without prejudice.