Rosas v. Robinson et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for complete details. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 04/13/2017. Copy mailed to Plaintiff as directed.(ccol, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
PETER ROSAS,

t~~~'.
CLERK. U.S. D1STR1CT COURT
RICHMOND VA

Plaintiff,

v.

Civil Action No. 3:16CV165

DAVID 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). Courts must
liberally construe pro se civil rights complaints in order to address constitutional deprivations.

Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). Nevertheless, "[p]rinciples requiring
generous construction of prose complaints are not ... without limits." Beaudett v. City of

Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). Plaintiff's current allegations failed 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 September 16, 2016, the Court
directed Plaintiff to submit a particularized complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of
entry thereof. (ECF No. 13.)
Rather than submit a particularized complaint, Plaintiff sought a stay while he pursued an
appeal in another case. (ECF No. 15.) By Memorandum Order entered February 1, 2017, the
Court denied Plaintiff's request for a stay and directed Plaintiff to comply with the September

16, 2016 Memorandum Order within eleven (11) days of the date of entry thereof. (ECF
No. 19.)
More than eleven (11) days have elapsed since the entry of the February 1, 2017
Memorandum Order and Plaintiff has not responded. Accordingly, the action WILL BE
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

Date:
APR 1 2
Richmond, Virginia

2017

2