Juste v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 7/12/17. (Copy mailed to pro se plaintiff).(jtho, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGI> Richmond Division ANDRE JUSTE, ^D IL (1 JUL I 2 2017 ' R'CTCOURT —__R^HMONa VA Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. 3:16CV903 COMIVIONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, a federal inmate proceedingpro se and informa panperis, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. In order to state a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiffmust 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). In his current Complaint, Plaintiff fails to provide the Defendant with fair notice of the facts and legal basis upon which its liability rests. See Bell At!. Corp. v. T^vomhly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on June 9, 2017, the Court directed Plaintiff to 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 June 9,2017 Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond to the June 9,2017 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. /s/ M. Hannah Lauck United States Distriit Judge Dace; JUL 1 2 2017 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?