King v. Robinson et al
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 8/10/16. (mailed copy to pro se plaintiff).(jtho, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
rp
Richmond Division
•
0 20IG
JOHN KING,
DISTRICT
h-.-qnd. vaCOURT
rlaintiiis,
V.
Civil Action No. 3:16CV164
DAVID ROBINSON, etaL,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceedingpro se and informa pauperis, filed this 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action. Inorder to state a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege
thata 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. TotalAction Agamst 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 thateach Defendant was personally
involved in thedeprivation 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 Atl. 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 28,
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 28, 2016
Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint orotherwise respond
to the June 28,2016 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Anappropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
M. HaimahLau^'' ^
United States District Judge
Date:AUG 10 2016
Richmond, Virginia
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?