Prasad v. Facebook et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for complete details. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 04/13/2018. Copy mailed to Plaintiff as directed.(ccol, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
SUNDARI K. PRASAD,
Civil Action No. 3:17CV391
Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and informapauperis, 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. Tola! 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
February 15, 2018, the Court directed Plaintiffto submita particularized complaint within
fourteen (14) days of the date of entry thereof. The Court warned Plaintiffthat 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 February 15,2018
Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond
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?