Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:16CV520
04-25-2017
MONTE D. CREWS, Plaintiff, v. CPT. WALKER, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
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). In his current Complaint, Plaintiff does not identify the particular constitutional right that was violated by the defendants' conduct. Moreover, Plaintiff's current allegations fail to provide each defendant with fair notice of the 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)). Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on February 27, 2017, 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.
Instead of filing a particularized complaint, and without acknowledging the Court's directives, Plaintiff again filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (ECF No. 22.) By Memorandum Order entered on March 16, 2017, the Court denied without prejudice the Motion for Appointment of Counsel and directed Plaintiff that he had fourteen (14) days from the date of entry thereof to comply with the directives in the Court's February 27, 2017 Memorandum Order or else the Court would dismiss the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
More than fourteen (14) days have elapsed since the entry of the March 16, 2017 Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond to March 16, 2017 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
/s/_________
M. Hannah Lauck
United States District Judge Date: APR 25 2017
Richmond, Virginia