REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

BARRY A. BRYANT, Magistrate Judge.

Pamela Liles ("Plaintiff") brings this action pursuant to § 205(g) of Title II of the Social Security Act ("The Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2010), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("SSA") denying her application for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and a period of disability under Title II of the Act.

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) (2009), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey referred this case to this Court for the purpose of making a report and recommendation. In accordance with that referral, this Court recommends Plaintiff's case be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute.

1. Background:

Plaintiff filed a complaint on April 2, 2012. ECF No. 1. Summons were issued and returned to Plaintiff for service on Defendant, the Social Security Administration Commissioner, the U.S. Attorney, and the U.S. Attorney General. Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements of Rule 4(l) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requiring the person serving process to make proof of service thereof to the court and Rule 4(m) requiring service of the summons and complaint upon a defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint.

On June 3, 2013, this Court issued an Order To Show Cause and ordered Plaintiff to show cause, within fourteen (14) days of the Order, why the action against Defendant Social Security Administration should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 5. Plaintiff has failed to comply or respond to this Order.

2. Conclusion:

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds the Plaintiff has failed to show cause why the action against Defendant Social Security Administration should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. This Court recommends the Plaintiff's Complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice.

The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990).