HOOD et al v. TOWN OF OCHLOCKNEE GEORGIA et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
FRANCES HOOD and
MATTHEW A. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MAYOR RONELLE SEARCY,
et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CASE NO:
7:25-cv-184–WLS
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to F.R.C.P.
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (Doc. 26) (“Motion to Dismiss”). On February 18, 2026, Plaintiffs filed
their First Amended Complaint (Doc. 30).1 Upon the filing of the First Amended Complaint,
pending motions to dismiss with respect to the original complaint became moot.
Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 26) is DENIED, AS MOOT, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED, this 20th day of February 2026.
/s/W. Louis Sands
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1 A party may amend its pleadings once as a matter of course “if the pleading is one to which a responsive
pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under
Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). The Court extended the time for Plaintiffs
to respond to the Motion to Dismiss until February 18, 2026. (See Doc. 29).
Case 7:25-cv-00184-WLS Document 31 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 1