Newkirk v. Bankins et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 10/30/2013. Copy to Plaintiff as Directed.(cmcc, )

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

L

E

OCT 3 I 2013
CLERK. U.S. DISTrttCT COUR1
RICHMOND. VA

KENNETH NEWKIRK,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 3:13CV178-HEH

LISAK. BANKINS, <?/*/.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

(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.