IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA TONYA DEFATTA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) V. ) Case No. CIV-23-15-SLP ) THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. ) COMMISSIONERS OF THE LAND OFFICE, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 8]. Subsequent to the filing of the Motion, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 9]. “The [A]mended [C]omplaint, as the operative complaint, supersedes the original complaint’s allegations[.]” May v. Segovia,

(10th Cir. 2019). Thus, those allegations are of “no legal effect.” Davis v. TXO Prod. Corp.,

(10th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 8] is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED this 2™ day of February, 2023. Ze OZ □□ Lp SCOTT L. PALK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE