ORDER

J. RANDAL HALL, District Judge.

Presently before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss. (Doc. 5.) For the reasons discussed below, Defendants' motion is DENIED.

I. Background

Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff Lorraine Rega initiated this action, alleging employment discrimination. (Doc. 1.) On the same day she filed her complaint, Plaintiff moved to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2.) While that motion was pending, Plaintiff apparently attempted to serve process on Defendants by mailing a copy of her complaint to the Augusta State Medical Prison. Defendants responded by moving to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failing to properly serve process and because it failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. While that motion was pending, the Magistrate Judge ruled on Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 15.) In that Order, the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff's motion, but ordered her to file an amended complaint, which she has done.

II. Discussion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 governs summonses and service of process. Under Rule 4, once a plaintiff initiates a lawsuit, he or she may present a summons to the clerk to sign, and the clerk must issue the summons if it is properly completed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(b). And a plaintiff must serve the summons along with a copy of the complaint on all defendants within a specified amount of time. When Plaintiff initiated this action, the time requirement was 120 days from the date of filing the complaint.1 In this case, there is no evidence that Plaintiff properly and timely served Defendants with the original complaint, and Plaintiff does not argue that she did.

This case, however, is unique. Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court was required to screen her complaint. See Phillips v. Mashburn, 746 F.2d 782, 784-85 (11th Cir. 1984). When Plaintiff attempted service on Defendants and when Defendants moved to dismiss the claims, the Magistrate Judge was conducting a frivolity review and had not yet permitted the case to move forward. (See Doc. 15 at 2 n.1.) Accordingly, serving Defendants was not yet proper. (See Doc. 13 at 2.) Subsequently, the Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff's complaint failed to meet the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and ordered her to file an amended complaint and instructed her how to cure the defects. And the Magistrate Judge informed Plaintiff that, upon screening the amended complaint, he would determine which Defendants to serve with a copy of the amended complaint.

Because Defendants' motion to dismiss is based on Plaintiff's first complaint, it must fail. First, she was given an opportunity to cure any pleading defects, so any argument that the first complaint failed to state a claim is mooted. Second, Plaintiff's erroneous service occurred before she had been permitted to proceed with her claims. Essentially, because Plaintiff prematurely attempted to serve Defendants, Defendants prematurely moved to dismiss the claims. Accordingly, Defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. 5) is DENIED.