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, )

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