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, )

Download PDF
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?