Sirleaf v. Robinson et al, No. 3:2015cv00552 - Document 44 (E.D. Va. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 8/10/2016. (sbea, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sirleaf v. Robinson et al Doc. 44 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division MOMOLU SIRLEAF, Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 3:1SCV552 DAYID ROBINSON, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceeding prose 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). In his current Amended Complaint, Plaintiff fails to allege facts indicating that each Defendant was personally involved in the deprivation of his rights. Moreover, Plaintiffs rambling allegations fail to provide each Defendant with fair notice of the facts and legal basis upon which his or her liability rests. See Bell At/. 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 June 27, 2016, 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 June 27, 2016 Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond Dockets.Justia.com to the June 27, 2016 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. Date: AUG 1 0 2016 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.
