Hurt v. Lawhorne et al
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr on 7/23/13. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
MAJOR EDWARD HURT,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 3:12CV03
DANA LAWHORNE, et aL,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and informa pauperis, filed this 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action. In order to state a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege
that a person acting under color of state law deprived him or her of a constitutional right or of a
right conferred by a law of the United States. See Dowe v. Total Action Against Poverty in
Roanoke Valley, 145 F.3d 653, 658 (4th Cir. 1998) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Plaintiffs current
allegations fail to provide each defendant with fair notice of the facts and legal basis upon which
his or her liability rests. See Bell Atl Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on
September 25, 2012, the Court directed Plaintiff to submit a particularized complaint within
fourteen (14) days of the date of erftry thereof. The Court warned Plaintiff that the failure to
submit the particularized complaint would result in the dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41(b). By Memorandum Order entered on April 26, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff an
extension of fifteen (15) days from the date of entry thereof to submit a particularizedcomplaint.
More than fifteen (15) days have elapsed since the entry of the April 26, 2013
Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint. Accordingly, the
action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: ^/H I?
Richmond, Virginia
/s/,
John A. Gibney^
United States District'Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?