Prasad v. Wells Fargo Bank et al, No. 3:2017cv00076 - Document 14 (E.D. Va. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for complete details. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 09/06/2017. Copy mailed to Plaintiff.(ccol, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Prasad v. Wells Fargo Bank et al Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division SEP - 7 2017 SUNDARI K. PRASAD, Plaintiff, CLERK, U.S. DiSTA1CT COURT RICHMOND, VA v. Civil Action No. 3:17CV76 WELLS FARGO BANK, et al, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceeding prose and informa pauperis, submitted this civil action and filed a particularized complaint. However, in her particularized complaint, Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to support a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 1 against each listed defendant. Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on July 21, 2017, the Court directed Plaintiff to submit a second particularized complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry thereof. (ECF No. 11.) The Court warned Plaintiff that the failure to submit the second particularized complaint would result in the dismissal of the action. (Id. at 3.) Instead of filing a particularized complaint, on July 31, 2017, the Court received a Motion for Appointment of Counsel from Plaintiff. (ECF No. 12.) By Memorandum Order 1 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 States 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 entered on August 2, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Counsel and ordered her to file her second particularized complaint within eleven ( 11) days of the date of entry thereof. (ECF No. 13, at 1.) The Court again warned Plaintiff that the failure to submit the second particularized complaint would result in the dismissal of the action. (Id.) More than eleven ( 11) days have elapsed since the entry of the August 2, 2017 Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a second particularized complaint or otherwise respond to the August 2, 2017 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. Date: SEP 0 6. 2017; 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.
