King v. Robinson et al, No. 3:2016cv00164 - Document 14 (E.D. Va. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 8/10/16. (mailed copy to pro se plaintiff).(jtho, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
King v. Robinson et al Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA rp Richmond Division • 0 20IG JOHN KING, DISTRICT h-.-qnd. vaCOURT rlaintiiis, V. Civil Action No. 3:16CV164 DAVID ROBINSON, etaL, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceedingpro 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 thata 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 Agamst 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 thateach Defendant was personally involved in thedeprivation 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 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 June 28, 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 28, 2016 Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint orotherwise respond Dockets.Justia.com to the June 28,2016 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Anappropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. M. HaimahLau^'' ^ United States District Judge Date:AUG 10 2016 Richmond, Virginia
]]>
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.
