Newkirk v. Lerner et al, No. 3:2012cv00410 - Document 46 (E.D. Va. 2013)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 9/9/13. Copy sent: Yes(tdai, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA E I L SEP-9 Richmond Division CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT RICHMOND, VA KENNETH NEWKIRK, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:12CV410-HEH v. LOUISLERNER,efa/., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION (Dismissing Action Without Prejudice) 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. TotalAction Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley, 145 F.3d 653, 658 (4th Cir. 1998) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983). In his current complaint, Plaintiff does not identify the particular constitutional right that was violated by the defendants' conduct. Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on May 20, 2013, 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 the particularized complaint would result in the dismissal of the action. More than fourteen (14) days have elapsed since the entry of the May 20,2013 Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond to the May 20, 2013 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be dismissed without prejudice.1 An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. /W^ Datei&jrf »fltfU /s/ HENRY E. HUDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Richmond, Virginia 1The Court notes that Plaintiff appealed the Court's May 20, 2013 Memorandum Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the Court dismissed the appeal on September 4, 2013. (See ECF No. 45.) To the extent Plaintiff intends to appeal the Magistrate's Memorandum Order to the District Court, his appeal is DENIED. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

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.