Coleman v. Wilson et al, No. 3:2021cv00425 - Document 7 (E.D. Va. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 11/30/2021. (jpow, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Coleman v. Wilson et al Doc. 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division LAMAR O’NEIL COLEMAN, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:21cv425 JASON WILSON, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Lamar O’Neil Coleman, a Virginia detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 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). Coleman’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)); see also (ECF No. 1.) Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on September 15, 2021, the Court directed Coleman to submit a particularized complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry thereof. (ECF No. 6, at 2.) The Court warned Plaintiff that the failure to submit the particularized complaint would result in the dismissal of the action. (Id. 3.) Dockets.Justia.com More than fourteen (14) days have elapsed since the entry of the September 15, 2021 Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond to the September 15, 2021 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. /s/ M. Hannah Lauck United States District Judge Date: 11-30-21 Richmond, Virginia 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
