Full Opinion

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 26-1586 __________ JENNIFER E. MCDOWELL, Appellant v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Child Welfare Agency; COMMUNITY CARES CENTER; DOWNTOWN DAILY BREAD; DAUPHIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY; GREYHOUND LINES INC; WAWA CORP; LEGAL SEA FOODS; INTEGRATED MEDICAL TRANSPORT; OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE; OFFICER RON, Pennsylvania State Police; JANE ADDAMS SHELTER, Unnamed Director and 4 Staff Members; WINN PROPERTIES, The Town &Governor’s Square; PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF AGING; SHAMARA LLYOD, CUA Worker, Caseworker for DHS; SABRINA ASH, CUA Worker; JUDGE SABATINA, Family Court Judge; FAN, Dauphin County Courts Staff Member; UNIDENTIFIED INFORMANTS, Reggie and Others; AVIS, Philadelphia International Airport Location; HERTZ, Rental Philadelphia Location; AMAZON, Formerly named, later removed; UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC; DEFENDER ASSOCIATION OF PHILADELPHIA; UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUALS, Staging Incidents in Public Spaces; EMILY HOFFMAN, UMPC ER Doctor, Medical Professionals Who Enabled DHS Narratives; ERIC DEGELOW, UMPC ER Doctor, Medical Professionals who Enabled DHS Narratives; LYNN MICHELLE, Norristown Planned Parenthood Doctors; DR. ZAMOSTIEN, Norristown Planned Parenthood Doctors; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT; STRAWBERRY SQUARE SECURITY; STRAWBERRY SQUARE UNNAMED CLEANING STAFF MEMBER ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-01317) District Judge: Honorable Jennifer P. Wilson ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) November 4, 2026 Before: SHWARTZ, PHIIPPS, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed November 9, 2026) ___________ OPINION* ___________ PER CURIAM Jennifer E. McDowell appeals pro se the District Court’s order dismissing her complaint with prejudice. We will affirm. McDowell filed suit against numerous defendants, including state agencies and private businesses as well as named and unnamed individuals, alleging the Department of Human Services’ Child Welfare Department (“DHS”) engaged in a state-wide conspiracy to deprive her of her constitutional rights. The Chief Magistrate Judge screened her complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), determined the filing violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, and recommended it be dismissed without prejudice to McDowell’s refiling to cure its defects. The District Judge overruled McDowell’s objections, adopted the Chief Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and dismissed McDowell’s complaint without prejudice. McDowell filed an amended complaint shortly thereafter, this time against more than 110 defendants, claiming she was wrongfully investigated by the DHS and this investigation negatively impacted her personal and professional life. The Magistrate Judge screened her amended complaint * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 2 and recommended it be dismissed with prejudice because McDowell’s conclusory and disjointed allegations failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The District Court overruled McDowell’s objections to the Report and dismissed her complaint with prejudice. McDowell timely appealed.1 Even construing the complaint liberally, we find no factual allegations from which we can reasonably infer that McDowell has raised, or could raise, plausible claims for relief. As the District Court explained, McDowell’s amended complaint alleged sporadic facts void of any specific timeframe or common connection, other than the sweeping assertion that all of the defendants’ conduct was at the direction of the DHS.2 Her vague allegations of “engineered homelessness, forced dependency, sabotage of work, staged confrontations, false mental-health narratives, and economic destruction,” ECF No. 49 at 28, without “further factual enhancement,” are insufficient to state a claim.3 Iqbal, 556 1 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over the District Court’s decision to dismiss McDowell’s amended complaint, see Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d 366, 373 (3d Cir. 2020). To survive dismissal, a complaint must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” by alleging facts that “permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct[.]” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (citation to quote case omitted). A pleading that merely “offers labels and conclusions” or “tenders naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement” is insufficient. Id. at 678 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2 McDowell alleged that DHS “solicited employers, shelter staff, ministries, healthcare providers, community members, and private individuals . . . to participate in the creation of [] false investigative conditions.” ECF No. 49 at 23. 3 On appeal, McDowell argues her “Respondent/Allegations Matrix” provided sufficient substantive factual allegations to cure the defect in her initial complaint. See CA No. 8 at 9. However, this matrix merely named the defendants and listed their alleged constitutional violations but did not provide a single fact in support. 3 U.S. at 678. We therefore see no reason to disturb the District Court’s dismissal, and we agree that further amendment would have been futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002). Lastly, McDowell has not alleged any facts in her many filings in this appeal that would cure the defects in her claims. See generally Geist v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 49 F.4th 861, 866 n.6 (3d Cir. 2022) (“The District Court did not err in dismissing [plaintiff’s] claim with prejudice because further amendment would be futile.”). We have considered the various arguments raised in McDowell’s briefing,4 and we conclude that none of those arguments entitle her to relief here. Accordingly, and in view of the above, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.5 4 McDowell’s motions for permission to file the supplemental briefs that she has submitted to this Court are granted. 5 Although we have considered McDowell’s extra-record allegations in evaluating whether further amendment of her complaint would be futile, we deny her request to supplement the record with those allegations. See Burton v. Teleflex Inc., 707 F.3d 417, 435 (3d Cir. 2013) (indicating that a party may supplement the record on appeal in only “exceptional circumstances”). To the extent McDowell seeks any other relief from the Court, that relief is denied. 4