Jack v. Chapman et al, No. 3:2014cv00390 - Document 16 (E.D. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge James R. Spencer on 6/25/15. Copy sent: Yes (tdai, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jack v. Chapman et al Doc. 16 p IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA p ! I JIW 2 5 2015 Richmond Division CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT RICHMOND, VA JAMES L. JACK, Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. 3:14CV390 MICHAEL L. CHAPMAN, et aL, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and informa pauperis, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Inorder 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 lawof 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, 355U.S.41,47 (1957)). Accordingly, by Memorandum Orderentered on March 25, 2015, the Court directed Plaintiffto 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 elapsed after the entry of the March 25, 2015 Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond to the March 25, 2015 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, by Memorandum Opinion and Order entered April 17, 2015, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice. Dockets.Justia.com On May 13, 2015, the Court received a letter from Plaintiff. Inthat filing, he explained that he never received the March 25, 2015 Memorandum Order because he was transferred temporarily from the Loudoun County Adult Detention Center andonly returned on April 7, 2015. Plaintiff alleged that he still has not received the March 25, 2015 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, by Memorandum Orderentered on May 20, 2015, the Court vacated the April 17, 2015 Memorandum Opinion and Order and reinstated the action on the active docket.' The Courtdirected Plaintiffto comply with the terms of the March 25, 2015 Memorandum Order within fourteen (14) days of the date of entrythereof. The Court warned that the failure to comply with this directive would result in dismissal of the action. More thanfourteen (14) days have elapsed since the entry of the May 20,2015 Memorandum Order. Plaintiff again failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond to the May 20, 2015 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. Date: /5 Richmond, Virginia /s/ James R. Spencer Licnior U. S. District Judge ' The Court treated Plaintiffs letter as a request for relief under Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 59(e).
]]>
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.
