Prasad v. Cavanaugh PLLC et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See for complete details. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 08/03/2017. (mailed copy to pro se Plaintiff) (nbrow)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINI Richmond Division SUNDARI K. PRASAD, ~ -~ ~ ~ [ j AUG .... 3 2017 v. Civil Action No. 3:16CV979 CAVANAUGH PLLC, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceeding prose and informa pauperis, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. 1 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). Plaintiff's 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 May 31, 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. statute provides, in pertinent part: Every person who, under color of any statute ... of any State ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law .... 42 u.s.c. § 1983. l1J CLERK, U.S. DISF<ICT COURT RICHfvimm. VA Plaintiff, 1 That ~-~1 More than fourteen ( 14) days have elapsed since the entry of the May 31, 2017 Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond to the May 31, 2017 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's outstanding motion (ECF No. 3) will be DENIED. An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. Date: AUG 03 2017 Richmond, Virginia 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?