Hidalgo v. Back et al
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Read Opinion for complete details. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 05/8/2017. Copy mailed to Plaintiff as directed.(ccol, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN) DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
~
MAY - 9 2017
JORDAN HIDALGO,
Plaintiff,
v.
PHYLLIS BACK, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CLERK, U.S. Di.Sltl1CT COURT
RICHMOND, VA
Civil Action No. 3:16CV844-HEH
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(Dismissing Action Without Prejudice)
Plaintiff, a federal inmate proceedingpro 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 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). Plaintiffs current 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 April 14, 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 April 14, 2017
Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise
responded to the April 14, 2017 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be
dismissed without prejudice.
An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
HENRY E. HUDSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
111A'lf20 l'f
Date:
Richmond, irginia
2
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?