Sessoms v. Robinson et al, No. 3:2016cv00166 - Document 14 (E.D. Va. 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 10/20/2016. Copy mailed to Sessoms. (tjoh, )

Download PDF
Sessoms v. Robinson et al Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division CLERK, U S DISTRICT COURT RICH'.'Oi\D, VA RYAN SESSOMS, Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. 3:16CV166 DAVID ROBINSON, et aL, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and informa pauperis, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. By Memorandum Order entered on September 19,2016, the Court directed Plaintiff to submit a particularized complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry thereof. (ECF No. 13.) The Court warned Plaintiff that the failure to submit the particularized complaint would result in the dismissal of the 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 Complaint filed on March 16, 2016 (ECF No. 2), 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 Defendantwith fair notice of the facts and legal basis upon which his or her liabilityrests. See Bell Atl Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Dockets.Justia.com More than fourteen (14) days have elapsed since the entry of the September 19,2016 Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularizedcomplaint or otherwise respond to the September 19,2016 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. i/l M. Hannah Laj i. o 0n1£: Date: OCl 20 2016 Richmond, Virginia United States district Judge

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.