Perry v. Godwin

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for details. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 8/16/2017. Memorandum Opinion was mailed to plaintiff. (sbea, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Riclunond Division RK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT RICHMOND LAMOND PERRY, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:17CV72 SHERIFF T. GODWIN, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Lamond Perry, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this 42 U.S.C. § u. s. c. state a viable claim under 42 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 See Dowe v. law of the United States. Poverty in Roanoke Valley, (citing 42 u.s.c. allegations fail 1983). § 145 F. 3d 653, Total Action Against 658 (4th Cir. In his current Complaint, 1998) Perry's to provide the defendant with fair notice of the facts and legal basis upon which his or her liability rests. See Bell (quoting Atl. Corp. Conley Accordingly, v. v. Twombly, Gibson, 3SS sso U.S. U.S. 544, 41, SSS 47 by Memorandum Order entered on July 14, (2007) (19S7)). 2017, the Court directed Perry to submit a particularized complaint within fourteen ( 14) days of the date of entry thereof. The Court warned Perry 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 July 14, 2017 Memorandum Order. Perry failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond to the July 14, 2017 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion to Perry. /s/ Date: ~rJ lh1 '2.-ot7 Richmond, VOrginia /? ~ 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?