From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kearney v. Va. Beach Corr. Ctr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division
Nov 9, 2018
Civil Action No. 3:18CV338 (E.D. Va. Nov. 9, 2018)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 3:18CV338

11-09-2018

SAMUEL KEARNEY, Plaintiff, 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 plaintiff's "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. Plaintiff's current allegations also fail to provide the 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 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: November 9, 2018
Richmond, Virginia

/s/_________

John A. Gibney, Jr.

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Kearney v. Va. Beach Corr. Ctr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division
Nov 9, 2018
Civil Action No. 3:18CV338 (E.D. Va. Nov. 9, 2018)
Case details for

Kearney v. Va. Beach Corr. Ctr.

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL KEARNEY, Plaintiff, v. VIRGINIA BEACH CORRECTIONAL CENTER…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division

Date published: Nov 9, 2018

Citations

Civil Action No. 3:18CV338 (E.D. Va. Nov. 9, 2018)