Kearney v. Virginia Beach Correctional Center, No. 3:2018cv00338 - Document 12 (E.D. Va. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr on 11/09/2018. (Copy mailed to Plaintiff) (smej, )

Download PDF
Kearney v. Virginia Beach Correctional Center Doc. 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division SAMUEL KEARNEY, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:18CV338 V. VIRGINIA BEACH CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, a federal inmate proceeding pro se and in forma 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). 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 of the collective term 'people them' as a means to name a 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). In his current Complaint, Plaintiff does not identify the particular constitutional right that was violated by the defendant's conduct. Plaintiffs current allegations also fail to provide the Dockets.Justia.com defendant with fair notice of the facts and legal basis upon which his or her liability rests. See BellAtl 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 September 6, 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 of the action. More than fourteen (14) days have elapsed since the entry of the September 6, 2018 Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond to the September 6, 2018 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. Date: Richmond, Virginia John A. Gibney, Jr. United States Distnct-J t

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.