Hatton v. Johnson et al
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for details. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 04/21/2015. Copy mailed to plaintiff as directed.(ccol, )
p
IN THE UNITED
FOR THE
ir
STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
APR 2 1 2015
j
Richmond Division
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
RICHMOND. VA
ADRIAN T.
HATTON,
Plaintiff,
V.
Civil Action No.
CAPTAIN JOHNSON, ^
3:14CV428
al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Adrian T.
Hatton,
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.
allege that a
person acting under color of
him or her of a
a
law of
Poverty
the
in
constitutional right or of a
United
Roanoke
(citing 42 U.S.C.
fails
§ 1983,
States.
Valley,
§ 1983).
See
145
Dowe
F.3d
v.
653,
In order
a plaintiff must
state
law deprived
right conferred by
Total
658
Action Against
(4th
Cir.
In his current Complaint,
to provide each defendant with fair notice of
Plaintiff
the
and legal basis upon which his or her liability rests.
Atl.
V.
Corp.
Gibson,
Order
V.
Twombly,
355 U.S.
entered
on
550 U.S.
41,
47
March
24,
544,
(1957)),
2015,
the
555
(2007)
particularized complaint within fourteen
the
of
entry thereof.
The
Court
See Bell
by Memorandum
directed
submit a
date
facts
(quoting Conley
Accordingly,
Court
1998)
Hatton
(14)
to
days of
warned Hatton that
the
failure to submit the particularized complaint would result in
the dismissal of the action.
More than fourteen
of
the March 24,
(14)
days have elapsed since the entry
2015 Memorandum Order.
Hatton failed to
submit a particularized complaint or otherwise responded to the
March 24, 2015 Memorandum Order.
Accordingly, the action will
be dismissed without prejudice.
The Clerk is directed to send a
copy of
this Memorandum
Opinion to Hatton.
^
Date:
^
2-1;
Richmond^ Virginia
JM-
Robert E. Payne
Senior 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?