Carter, Jr., v. Ray et al, No. 3:2017cv00850 - Document 11 (E.D. Va. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 06/08/2018. (Copy mailed to Plaintiff Carter). (smej, )

Download PDF
Carter, Jr., v. Ray et al Doc. 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division LEONARD CARTER, JR., Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:17CV850-HEH V. TRACEY RAY,etal. Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION (Dismissing Action Without Prejudice) 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 nonsensical allegations fail to provide each defendant with fair notice of the facts and legal basis upon which his or her liability rests. See Bell Ati 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 17, 2018,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 ofthe action. Dockets.Justia.com More than fourteen (14) days have elapsed since the entry of the May 17, 2018 Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond to the May 17, 2018 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be dismissed without prejudice. An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. /s/ HENRY E. HUDSON Date: aoi)? Richmond, Virginia SENIOR 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.