Hardy v. Detective's Office et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 2/18/15. Copy sent: Yes (tdai, )

Download PDF
I IN THE UNITED L FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA FEB I9 2015 Richmond Division RICHMOND, VA Plaintiff, Civil Action No. v. DETECTIVE'S OFFICE, 3:14CV83 et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Keyon Sante Hardy, in forma pauperis, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. to state a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. that a person acting under § 1983, color of In order a plaintiff must state law deprived him or her of a constitutional right or of a right conferred by a law of Poverty the in United Roanoke (citing 42 U.S.C. Complaint notice of § (2007) 1983). 8) facts liability rests. 555 States. Valley, (ECF No. the See 145 fail to and Dowe F.3d v. 653, Hardy's Total 658 Action Against (4th allegations Cir. in his provide each defendant legal See Bell Atl. (quoting Conley v. Accordingly, basis Corp. upon which v. Twombly, Gibson, 355 U.S. Amended with fair his 550 41, 1998) or U.S. 47 her 544, (1957)). by Memorandum Order entered on January 9, 2015, the Court directed Hardy to submit a particularized complaint within fourteen (14) B \ii CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT KEYON SANTE HARDY, allege I STATES DISTRICT COURT days of the date of entry thereof. The Court warned Hardy that the failure to submit the particularized complaint would result in the dismissal of the action. More than fourteen (14) days have elapsed since the of the January 9, 2015 Memorandum Order. entry Hardy failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond to the January 9, 2015 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion to Hardy. It is so ORDERED. /s/ ALf Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge Richmond, Date Virginia ' ?<&U*J>ff /ijM

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?