Prasad v. Wells Fargo Bank et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for complete details. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 09/06/2017. Copy mailed to Plaintiff.(ccol, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

SEP - 7 2017

SUNDARI K. PRASAD,
Plaintiff,

CLERK, U.S. DiSTA1CT COURT
RICHMOND, VA

v.

Civil Action No. 3:17CV76

WELLS FARGO BANK, et al,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceeding prose and informa pauperis, submitted this civil
action and filed a particularized complaint. However, in her particularized complaint, Plaintiff
failed to allege facts sufficient to support a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 1 against each
listed defendant.
Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on July 21, 2017, the Court directed
Plaintiff to submit a second particularized complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of
entry thereof. (ECF No. 11.) The Court warned Plaintiff that the failure to submit the second
particularized complaint would result in the dismissal of the action. (Id. at 3.)
Instead of filing a particularized complaint, on July 31, 2017, the Court received a
Motion for Appointment of Counsel from Plaintiff. (ECF No. 12.) By Memorandum Order

1

That 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.

~I

entered on August 2, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Counsel and
ordered her to file her second particularized complaint within eleven ( 11) days of the date of
entry thereof. (ECF No. 13, at 1.) The Court again warned Plaintiff that the failure to submit the
second particularized complaint would result in the dismissal of the action. (Id.) More than
eleven ( 11) days have elapsed since the entry of the August 2, 2017 Memorandum Order.
Plaintiff failed to submit a second particularized complaint or otherwise respond to the August 2,
2017 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: SEP 0 6. 2017;
Richmond, Virginia

2