Peede v. Chesapeake City Jail, No. 3:2018cv00658 - Document 14 (E.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 4/22/2019. Copy to Plaintiff as directed. (jsmi, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Peede v. Chesapeake City Jail Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division DONTAY B.PEEDE, Plaintiff, Civil Action No.3:18CV658-HEH V. CHESAPEAKE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Defendant. 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 ofa 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). 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). Dockets.Justia.com Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on March 21, 2019, the Court directed Plaintiffto submit a particularized complaint within fourteen(14) days ofthe date of entry thereof. The Court warned Plaintiffthat 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 March 21, 2019 Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond to the March 21, 2019 Memorandum Order. Accordingly,the action will be dismissed without prejudice. An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion. /s/ HENRY E. HUDSON Date: Apr.M Richmond, Virginia 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.
