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)

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