Newkirk v. Bankins et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 10/30/2013. Copy to Plaintiff as Directed.(cmcc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
OCT 3 I 2013
CLERK. U.S. DISTrttCT COUR1
Civil Action No. 3:13CV178-HEH
LISAK. BANKINS, /*/.,
(Dismissing Action Without Prejudice)
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 failed to provide each defendant
with fair notice of the facts and legal basis upon which his or her liability rests. See Bell
Art. 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 13, 2013, the
Court directed Plaintiff to submit a particularized complaint within fourteen (14) days of
the date of entry thereof. The Court warned Plaintiff that the failure to submit the
particularized complaint would result in the dismissal of the action.
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?