Prasad v. Cheek et al, No. 3:2017cv00073 - Document 11 (E.D. Va. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 8/3/17. (Copy mailed to Plaintiff).(jtho, )

Download PDF
Prasad v. Cheek et al Doc. 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA P D [L Richmond Division CVJ 1— CD [1 r*\ CO 1 -J SUNDARI K. PRASAD, CLfcKK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT RICHMOND. VA Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. 3:17CV73 VIVIENE B. CHEEK, el ai. Defendants. MEiMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se 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). 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, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on May 31, 2017, the Court directed Plaintiff to submit a particularized complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry thereof. The Court warned Plaintiffthat the failure to submit the particularized complaint would result in the dismissal of the action. That statute provides, in pertinent part; Every person who, under color of any statute ... of any State ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United Stales or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law.... 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Dockets.Justia.com More than fourteen (14) days have elapsed since the entry of the May 31,2017 Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond to the May 31, 2017 Memorandtim Order. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. M. Hannah Lauck n on 17 Date: AUti ' J 2017, 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.