Sirleaf v. Clarke, et al, No. 3:2017cv00539 - Document 46 (E.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. See OPINION for complete details. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 11/8/2018. Copy mailed to Plaintiff.(ccol, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sirleaf v. Clarke, et al Doc. 46 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division | NOV - 8 20iB PRIEST MOMOLU V.S. SIRLEAF,JR., clerk. U.S. DISTRICT COURT 'RICHMOND. VA Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:17CV539-HEH V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,et al. Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION (Denying Second Motion to Reconsider) Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and informa pauperis, filed this 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 action. The matter if before the Court on Plaintiffs "OMNIBUS MOTION TO : RECONSIDER ; TRANSFER JUDGESHIP ;& NOTICE OF APPEAL - in the alternative" ("Second Motion to Reconsider," ECF No.41,42) I. Procedural History Plaintiffs allegations failed to provide each defendant with fair notice ofthe facts and legal basis upon which his or her liability rests. Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on May 9, 2018, the Court directed Plaintiffto submit a Second Particularized Complaint within fourteen (14) days ofthe date of entry thereof. The Court warned Plaintiff that the failure to submit the Second Particularized Complaint would result in the dismissal ofthe action. More than fourteen(14)days elapsed after the entry of the May 9, 2018 Memorandum Order and Plaintiff failed to submit a Second Particularized Complaint or otherwise respond to the May 9, 2018 Memorandum Order. Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
