Burrell v. Doss et al, No. 3:2016cv00212 - Document 29 (E.D. Va. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. See for complete details. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 12/22/2016. Clerk mailed copy to pro se Plaintiff. (nbrow)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Burrell v. Doss et al Doc. 29 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division TROY LAMONT BURRELL, Plaintiff, v. MR. T. DOSS, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IL DEC 2 3 20l6 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT RICHMOND, VA Civil Action No. 3:16CV212-HEH MEMORANDUM OPINION (Dismissing Action Without Prejudice) 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 complaint, Plaintiff fails to provide each defendant with fair notice of the facts and legal basis upon which his or her liability rests. Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on October 13, 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. Instead of filing a particularized complaint, Plaintiff filed a Response explaining that he needed the Court to appoint him counsel. By Memorandum Order entered on Dockets.Justia.com November 16, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiffs request for counsel and informed Plaintiff that he had eleven ( 11) days from the date of entry thereof to comply with the directives of the October 13, 2016 Memorandum Order. More than eleven (11) days have elapsed since the entry of the November 16, 2016 Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond to the November 16, 2016 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be dismissed without prejudice. An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. Isl HENRY E. HUDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Date:Dec.. 2.2. 2,01, Richmond, Virgfnia 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.
