KAYMANI D. WEST, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KAYMANI D. WEST, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Nichole Harris Bey (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action against the South Carolina Department of Social Services (“SCDSS”), SCDSS Supervisor Constance Leaks, SCDSS Caseworker Melanie McMillian, and SCDSS Caseworker Whitney Warren. Plaintiff seeks damages and other relief for claims connected to the process utilized and the actions taken by SCDSS when they removed her children from her custody. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review such complaints for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends the district judge dismiss the Amended Complaint in this case without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
On July 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint pursuant to the court's diversity and federal question jurisdiction against SCDSS complaining of actions taken by SCDSS caseworkers and Marlboro Sheriff's officers when they removed her children from her custody. ECF No. 1. SCDSS was the sole Defendant named in Plaintiff's Complaint. Id.
The undersigned issued a proper form order and notice on July 31, 2023, advising Plaintiff that the factual allegations raised in her Complaint failed to assert any claims that fell within the court's diversity or federal question jurisdiction. ECF No. 9. Plaintiff was advised she had until August 11, 2023, to file an amended complaint or otherwise cure the identified deficiencies in her pleadings, and to submit service documents. Id. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on August 15, 2023; however, she did not submit service documents for the Defendant named in her Amended Complaint, and instead sent a waiver of service form. ECF Nos. 13, 15. The undersigned issued a second proper form order on August 24, 2023, advising Plaintiff that her action was not in proper form. ECF No. 18. The court informed Plaintiff that SCDSS was immune from a lawsuit brought in federal court except under limited exceptions not applicable to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff was therefore directed to identify appropriate defendants in this action and to explain how these defendants were personally involved in the alleged wrongful actions. Id. Plaintiff was also directed to complete summons and a Form USM 285 for each Defendant she named in her Complaint. Id. Plaintiff responded to the court's second proper form order by supplementing her Amended Complaint with additional defendants and claims. ECF No. 13-2. Plaintiff, however, failed to fully complete the requested service documents. See ECF Nos. 21, 23. Instead, Plaintiff sent to the court summonses, a waiver of the service of summons and a notice of lawsuit form, and a request to waive service of a summons form. Id. On September 19, 2023, the undersigned issued a third proper form order again advising Plaintiff that her action was not in proper form. ECF No. 25. Plaintiff was directed to complete a Form USM 285 for each of her named defendants. Id. Plaintiff was warned if she failed to bring her case into proper form within the time permitted that her case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with an order of the court. Id. Plaintiff responded to the court's September 12, 2023 order by filing an additional supplement to her Amended Complaint. ECF No. 28. Plaintiff also filed an additional amended complaint which the court construed as a Motion to amend/correct her complaint. ECF No. 29. Plaintiff, however, failed to complete the Form USM 285s for the Defendants named in her Amended Complaint as requested by the court.
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal court without prepaying the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. To protect against possible abuses of this privilege, the statute allows a district court to dismiss a case upon a finding that the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted or is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). A finding of frivolity can be made where the complaint lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). A claim based on a meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). A federal court is charged with liberally construing a complaint filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In evaluating a pro se complaint, the plaintiff's allegations are assumed to be true. Fine v. City of N.Y., 529 F.2d 70, 74 (2d Cir. 1975). The mandated liberal construction afforded to pro se pleadings means that if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so. Nevertheless, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts that set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 390-91 (4th Cir. 1990).
B. Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the court to dismiss any case in which the plaintiff “fails to prosecute or to comply with [the Federal] rules or a court order.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). A federal court has authority to dismiss a plaintiff's action because of a failure to prosecute a case. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962). Such power “is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.” Id. at 629-630. Based on Plaintiff's repeated refusal to comply with the court's orders directing Plaintiff to file Form USM 285 service documents with the court, the undersigned recommends the court dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.
III. Conclusion and Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends the court dismiss the Amended Complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. If the court accepts this recommendation, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint, ECF No. 29, will be rendered moot.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.”
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. [I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
Post Office Box 2317
Florence, South Carolina 29503
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).