Smith v. Ms. Thorpe et al, No. 3:2018cv00306 - Document 12 (E.D. Va. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION (Dismissing Action Without Prejudice). Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 09/24/2018. (Copy sent to Plaintiff) (smej, )

Download PDF
Smith v. Ms. Thorpe et al Doc. 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division ANTONIO SMITH, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:18CV306-HEH V. MS. THORPE,et aL, 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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)). Moreover, neither "inanimate objects such as buildings, facilities, and grounds" nor collective terms such as "staff or "agency" are persons amenable to suit under § 1983. Lamb v. Library People Them, No. 3:13-8-CMC-BHH,2013 WL 526887, at *2-3 (D.S.C. Jan. 22, 2013)(citations omitted)(internal quotations omitted) (explaining the plaintiffs "use ofthe collective term 'people them' as a means to name a Dockets.Justia.com defendant in a § 1983 claim does not adequately name a 'person'"); see Preval v. Reno, No.99-6950,2000 WL 20591, at *1 (4th Cir. 2000)(citations omitted)(affirming district court's determination that Piedmont Regional Jail is not a "person" under § 1983). Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on August 17, 2018, the Court directed Plaintiff to submit a particularized complaint within fourteen(14)days ofthe date of entry thereof. The Court warned Plaintiff that the failure to submit the particularized complaint would result in the dismissal ofthe action. More than fourteen(14) days have elapsed since the entry ofthe August 17, 2018 Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond to the August 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: 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.