Prasad v. Judge M. Hannah Lauck et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for details. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. on 9/13/2017. (sbea, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division SUNDARI K. PRASAD, Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. 3:17CV42 JUDGE M. HANNAH LAUCK, et aL, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, a Virginia 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). In her current Complaint, Plaintiff does not identify the particular constitutional right violated by the defendants' conduct. In addition. 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 August 8, 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 August 8, 2017 Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond to the August 8, 2017 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. An appropriate Order shall issue. John A. Gibney, Jr. United StatesDistrid Ji Date: ^//>//"^ 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?