Sirleaf et al v. Robinson et al

Filing 44

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 8/10/2016. (sbea, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
MOMOLU SIRLEAF,
Plaintiffs,

v.

Civil Action No. 3:1SCV552

DAYID ROBINSON, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceeding prose 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). In his current
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff fails to allege facts indicating that each Defendant was personally
involved in the deprivation of his rights. Moreover, Plaintiffs rambling allegations fail to
provide each Defendant with fair notice of the facts and legal basis upon which his or her
liability rests. See Bell At/. 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 June 27,
2016, 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.
More than fourteen (14) days have elapsed since the entry of the June 27, 2016
Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond

to the June 27, 2016 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: AUG 1 0 2016
Richmond, Virginia

2