IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Andres Glenn, ) C/A No.: 3:25-7869-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 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 following reasons, the undersigned recommends this matter be summarily dismissed. I. Factual and Procedural Background On July 18, 2025, the Clerk of Court docketed a filing, liberally construed as a complaint, which was a notice of the transfer of case management from one of Plaintiff’s prior cases. [ECF No. 1]. Plaintiff had also written that he’d like Kroger to “cut a de[a]l for the remaining land” and that he is suing for food, gas, and clothing cards and $85 trillion. . On August 15, 2025, the undersigned issued an order directing Plaintiff to complete the documents necessary to bring this case into proper form, including completing and signing a form complaint. [ECF No. 6]. Plaintiff having filed no response, the undersigned issued another order on September 9, 2025, permitting Plaintiff
another opportunity to complete the documents necessary to bring this case into proper form, including completing and signing a form complaint. [ECF No. 9]. On September 29, 2025, the court received the form complaint, partially
completed by Plaintiff. [ECF No. 11]. Plaintiff does not complete the portion of the complaint for him to state the facts underlying his complaint. . at 4. In the space for injuries, he writes “N/A.” . at 5. Plaintiff fails to sign the complaint as instructed.
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review Plaintiff filed his 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. , 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). , 490 U.S. 319, 327 (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. , 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). In evaluating
a pro se complaint, the plaintiff’s allegations are assumed to be true. ., 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. 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. , 551 U.S. 89, 94 (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. ., 901 F.2d 387, 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. , 556 U.S. 662, 677‒78 (2009); , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (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). Plaintiff failed to identify any jurisdictional basis. As to the second requirement, nor did he provide a short, plain statement showing he was entitled to relief. When asked for the relief sought, Plaintiff stated only “mental.” . 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, 11. 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. 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.” , 147 F.3d 347, 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.”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Andres Glenn, ) C/A No.: 3:25-7869-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 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 following reasons, the undersigned recommends this matter be summarily dismissed. I. Factual and Procedural Background On July 18, 2025, the Clerk of Court docketed a filing, liberally construed as a complaint, which was a notice of the transfer of case management from one of Plaintiff’s prior cases. [ECF No. 1]. Plaintiff had also written that he’d like Kroger to “cut a de[a]l for the remaining land” and that he is suing for food, gas, and clothing cards and $85 trillion. . On August 15, 2025, the undersigned issued an order directing Plaintiff to complete the documents necessary to bring this case into proper form, including completing and signing a form complaint. [ECF No. 6]. Plaintiff having filed no response, the undersigned issued another order on September 9, 2025, permitting Plaintiff
another opportunity to complete the documents necessary to bring this case into proper form, including completing and signing a form complaint. [ECF No. 9]. On September 29, 2025, the court received the form complaint, partially
completed by Plaintiff. [ECF No. 11]. Plaintiff does not complete the portion of the complaint for him to state the facts underlying his complaint. . at 4. In the space for injuries, he writes “N/A.” . at 5. Plaintiff fails to sign the complaint as instructed.
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review Plaintiff filed his 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. , 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). , 490 U.S. 319, 327 (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. , 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). In evaluating
a pro se complaint, the plaintiff’s allegations are assumed to be true. ., 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. 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. , 551 U.S. 89, 94 (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. ., 901 F.2d 387, 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. , 556 U.S. 662, 677‒78 (2009); , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (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). Plaintiff failed to identify any jurisdictional basis. As to the second requirement, nor did he provide a short, plain statement showing he was entitled to relief. When asked for the relief sought, Plaintiff stated only “mental.” . 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, 11. 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. 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.” , 147 F.3d 347, 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. , 190 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir. 1999). There is no presumption that a federal court has jurisdiction over a case, , 191 F.3d 394, 399 (4th Cir. 1999), and
a plaintiff must allege facts essential to show jurisdiction in his pleadings. , 298 U.S. 178, 189–90 (1936); , 762 F.2d 348, 350 (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 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and (2) federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 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, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(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. See Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373-74 nn.13-16 (1978). Plaintiff does not provide the citizenship for either party to the complaint, but the addresses listed for him and Defendant are both for the state of South Carolina. Plaintiff has failed 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. IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. PP Ut Flatgee’ September 30, 2025 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.’” , 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); 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); , 474 U.S. 140 (1985); , 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); , 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).