Hall v. May et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See for complete details. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 05/26/2017. (mailed copy to pro se Plaintiff) (nbrow)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division MAY 2 6 20l7 LAWRENCE HALL, CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT RICHMOND. VA Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:16CV960 T. MAY, et al. , Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Lawrence Hall, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 42 U.S.C. § state a viable claim under 42 U.S. C. 1983 action. § 1983, In order to 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. Poverty in Roanoke Valley, 145 (citing 42 U.S.C. In his current Complaint, Hall does not identify § the 1983). particular violated by the defendants' indicate whether he was F. 3d 653, Total Action Against constitutional conduct. a 658 (4th Cir. right 1998) that was Plaintiff also failed to convicted felon or a Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on April 26, detainee. 2017, the Court directed Hall to submit a particularized complaint within fourteen warned ( 14) Hall days that of the the date of entry thereof. failure to submit the The Court particularized complaint would result in the dismissal of the action. More than fourteen of the April 26, (14) days have elapsed since the entry 2017 Memorandum Order. Hall failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise responded to the April 26 , 2O1 7 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion to Hall. It is so ORDERED. /s/ n~ 241Zr;11 Date: Richmond, ~rginia Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge 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?