Saunders v. Western Tide Water Regional Jail

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION. SEE OPINION FOR COMPLETE DETAILS. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 06/22/2017. Copy mailed to Plaintiff.(ccol, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
DARRIUS TERRELL SAUNDERS,
Plaintiff,

JU~

2 2 2017

CLERK, U.S. D1STi11CT COURl
RICHMOND. VA

v.

Civil Action No. 3:16CV818

WESTERN REGIONAL TIDEWATER JAIL,
Defendant.
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). Neither "inanimate objects such as
buildings, facilities, and grounds" nor collective terms such as "staff' or "agency" are persons
amenable to suit under § 1983. Lamb v. Library People Them, No. 3: 13-8-CMC-BHH, 2013
WL 526887, at *2-3 (D.S.C. Jan. 22, 2013) (citations omitted) (internal quotations omitted)
(explaining that plaintiff's "use of the collective term 'people them' as a means to name a
defendant in a§ 1983 claim does not adequately name a 'person"'); see Preval v. Reno, No. 996950, 2000 WL 20591, at *1 (4th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted) (finding that district court
properly determined that Piedmont Regional Jail is not a "person" under§ 1983). In his current
Complaint, Plaintiff does not identify the particular constitutional right that was violated by the

defendant's conduct. Plaintiff's current allegations also fail to provide the 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 May 26, 2017 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 May 26, 2017
Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond
to the May 26, 2017 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

M. Hannah ij
United States

JUk 2 2 2017.

Date:
Richmond, Virginia

2

D
s~

V
:dge