IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION CALVIN DEWAYNE FINLEY, III PLAINTIFF v. Case No. 4:23-cv-395-JM FRESH MARKET DEFENDANT ORDER On May 11, 2023, I screened Plaintiff Calvin Finley’s amended complaint (Doc. 5) and accompanying pleading (Doc. 8). (Doc. 10). In response to the Court’s Order, Finley file a “Response to Order,” which the Clerk of Court filed as a motion for leave to file second amended complaint. (Doc. 11). In the document, Finley clearly attempts to supplement his facts to revive claims dismissed during screening; however, he does so in a cursory fashion—meaning he did not re-allege each and every claim originally pleaded. “It is well-established that an amended complaint supercedes an original complaint and renders the original complaint without legal effect.” In re Atlas Van Lines, Inc.,

(8th Cir. 2000). Thus, were the Court to allow Finley to amend his complaint with the draft provided, it would result in abandonment of his claims— a result it is clear Finley does not intend. Accordingly, Finley’s motion to file a second amended complaint (Doc. 11) is DENIED. Finley’s motion for default judgment (Doc. 15) is DENIED. Defendant has timely answered. IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of June, 2023. QE