Langston v. Necolettos et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. on 04/12/2018. Copy mailed to Plaintiff. (walk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

ROBERT LEE LANGSTON, JR.,
Plaintiff,
V.

Civil Action No. 3:17CV674

N. NECOLETTOS,e/a/.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro 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). 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
March 15, 2018, the Court directed Plaintiff to submit a particularized complaint within fourteen

(14) days of the date of entry thereof The Court also placed Plaintiff on notice that civil tort
actions are "not appropriate vehicles for challenging the validity of outstanding criminal
judgments." Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486 (1994). 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 March 15, 2018

Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond

to the March 15, 2018 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be dismissed without
prejudice.

An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
Date;

Richmond, Virginia

/s/

/d

JohnA.Gibney,Jr. / J
United States Distrifct Jddi