IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Andres Glenn, ) C/A No.: 3:24-3931-CMC-SVH ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) REPORT AND ) RECOMMENDATION Kroger, ) ) Defendant. ) )

Andres Glenn (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this complaint against Kroger (“Defendant”). Pursuant to

(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. I. Factual and Procedural Background In his original complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendant took his land in 1980 and his cousin saw it. [ECF No. 1 at 4]. He did not fully or meaningfully respond to the other prompts in the form complaint. On July 19, 2024, the undersigned issued orders (1) directing Plaintiff to submit documents necessary to bring this case into proper form and (2) advising Plaintiff of the deficiencies of his complaint and permitting him until August 9, 2024, to file an amended complaint. [ECF Nos. 6, 7]. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, but it contains no substantive allegations. [ECF No. 10].

II. Discussion

A. Standard of Review Plaintiff filed his complaint pursuant to

, 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.

(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. ,

(1992). A claim based on a meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte under

(e)(2)(B). ,

(1989).

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. ,

(4th Cir. 1978). In evaluating

a pro se complaint, the plaintiff’s allegations are assumed to be true. .,

(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. 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. ,

(2007). 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. .,

, 390–91 (4th Cir. 1990). Although the court must liberally construe a pro se complaint, the United States Supreme Court has made it clear a plaintiff must do more than make conclusory statements to state a

claim. ,

, 677‒78 (2009); ,

(2007). Rather, the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face, and the reviewing court need only accept as true the complaint’s

factual allegations, not its legal conclusions. , 556 U.S. at 678‒79. B. Analysis

1. Failure to Meet Pleading Requirements Plaintiff has failed to meet the minimal standards for the filing of a complaint. A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 3. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), a pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.

Plaintiff’s complaint does not meet the three requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).1 In his original complaint, as to the first requirement, Plaintiff failed to identify any specific Constitutional provisions or federal statutes that pertain to his case. As to the second requirement, Plaintiff provided a short, plain statement, but his statement does not show he is entitled to relief. ECF No. 1. When asked for the relief sought, Plaintiff responds he wants to “get what I su[e] for.” . at 5. Finally, Plaintiff did not comply with the requirement in Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) that “[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by . . . a party personally if the party is unrepresented. Plaintiff failed to sign the complaint forms he filed with the court. ECF Nos. 1, 10. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to summary dismissal for failure to meet the minimal requirements for the filing of a complaint.

1 Plaintiff did not comply with any of these requirements in his amended complaint. 2. Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, “constrained to exercise

only the authority conferred by Article III of the Constitution and affirmatively granted by federal statute.” ,

, 352 (4th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, a federal court is required, , to determine if a valid basis for its jurisdiction exists “and to dismiss the action if

no such ground appears.” at 352; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). Although the absence of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time during the case, determining jurisdiction at the

outset of the litigation is the most efficient procedure. ,

(4th Cir. 1999). There is no presumption that a federal court has jurisdiction over a case, ,

, 399 (4th Cir. 1999), and

a plaintiff must allege facts essential to show jurisdiction in his pleadings. ,

, 189–90 (1936); ,

(4th Cir. 1985) (“[P]laintiffs must affirmatively plead the jurisdiction of the federal court.”).

When a complaint fails to include “an affirmative pleading of a jurisdictional basis[,] a federal court may find that it has jurisdiction if the facts supporting jurisdiction have been clearly pleaded.” , 191 F.3d at 399 (citations omitted). However, if the court, viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to a plaintiff, finds insufficient allegations in the

pleadings, the court will lack subject-matter jurisdiction. The two most commonly recognized and utilized bases for federal court jurisdiction are (1) diversity of citizenship pursuant to

, and (2) federal question pursuant to

. The allegations contained in

this complaint do not fall within the scope of either form of the court’s limited jurisdiction. Plaintiff fails to allege the case is one “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

. Plaintiff alleges

no specific violation of the Constitution or federal statute, and no federal question jurisdiction is evident from the face of the complaints. While Plaintiff does not allege the court has jurisdiction pursuant to diversity, the undersigned has considered whether he could reasonably allege

this basis for the court’s jurisdiction. The diversity statute,

(a), requires complete diversity of parties and an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000. Complete diversity of parties in a case means no party on one side may be a citizen of the same state as any party on the other side.

,

, 373‒74 nn.13‒16 (1978). Plaintiff’s original complaint does not list citizenship of either party and his amended complaint lists South Carolina as the state of citizenship for both he and Defendant. [ECF No. 10 at 2]. Therefore, Plaintiff's complaints fail to demonstrate complete diversity of citizenship, rendering the court without diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, this case is subject to summary dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. III. Conclusion and Recommendation For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends this case be dismissed without further leave for amendment. IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. PP Ut Slalger August 9, 2024 Shiva V. Hodges Columbia, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge 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.’” ,

(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.

(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 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 901 Richland Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201

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.

(b)(1); ,

(1985); ,

(4th Cir. 1985); ,

(4th Cir. 1984).