Saunders v. Virginia Department of Corrections et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. SEE OPINION FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 05/25/2017. Copy mailed to Plaintiff.(ccol, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
GEORGE WILLIAM SAUNDERS,
Civil Action No. 3; 16CV409
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et aL,
Plaintiff, a former Virginia inmate proceeding pro se 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 actingundercolor 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. To^al ActionAgainst Poverty in
Roanoke Valley, 145 F.3d 653,658 (4th Cir. 1998) (citing42 U.S.C. § 1983). Plaintiffs current
allegations fail to provide each defendant with fair noticeof the facts and legal basis upon which
his or her liability rests. See BellAtl. 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
April 10,2017, the Court directed Plaintiffto submit a particularized complaint within fourteen
(14) days of the date of entry thereof The Court warned Plaintiffthat 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 April 10, 2017
Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond
to the April 10,2017 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED
An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
M. Hannah LaJ
m 2 5 2D«,
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?