Opinion
Civil Action 3:21cv781
11-18-2022
JEFFREY L. HEESCH, JR., Plaintiff, v. MR. WRIGHT, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
M. HANNAH LAUCK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, a Virginia 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). Plaintiff's current allegations fail to identify the particular constitutional right that was violated by each defendant's conduct or provide each 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).
Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on October 6, 2022, the Court directed Plaintiff to submit a particularized complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of entry thereof. (ECF No. 10.) The Court warned Plaintiff that the failure to submit a particularized complaint would result in the dismissal of the action.
More than thirty (30) days have elapsed since the entry of the October 6, 2022 Memorandum Order. Plaintiff has failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond to the October 6, 2022 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
An appropriate Final Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.