McCray v. Jamaludeen et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 10/26/2017. Copy mailed to pro se plaintiff.(tjoh, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA OCT 2 6 2017 Richmond Division CLERK, us ;• RiC;-;MC>ivL V'- BRIAN CURTIS McCRAY, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:17CV426-HEH V. ABDUL JAMALUDEEN, et al.. Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION (Dismissing Action Without Prejudice) Plaintiff, a former 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 plaintiffmust 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. TotalAction Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley, 145 F.3d 653, 658 (4th Cir. 1998) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983). 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 Orderentered on October 3, 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 a particularized complaint would result in the dismissal of the action. More than fourteen (14) days have elapsed since the entry of the October 3,2017 Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond to the October 3,2017 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be dismissed without prejudice. An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. /s/ A Date:Uci.2.S 2at') Richmond, Virginia HENRY E. HUDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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?