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, )
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?