From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bethel v. Clark

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division
Jul 19, 2018
Civil Action No. 3:18CV03-HEH (E.D. Va. Jul. 19, 2018)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 3:18CV03-HEH

07-19-2018

RAYMOND V. BETHEL, JR., Plaintiff, v. HAROLD W. CLARK, et al., Defendants.


MEMORANDUM OPINION
(Dismissing Action Without Prejudice)

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 failed to provide each defendant with fair notice of the facts and legal basis upon which his or her liability rests. Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on July 2, 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 July 2, 2018 Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond to the July 2, 2018 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be dismissed without prejudice.

An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

/s/_________

HENRY E. HUDSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Date: July 19, 2018
Richmond, Virginia


Summaries of

Bethel v. Clark

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division
Jul 19, 2018
Civil Action No. 3:18CV03-HEH (E.D. Va. Jul. 19, 2018)
Case details for

Bethel v. Clark

Case Details

Full title:RAYMOND V. BETHEL, JR., Plaintiff, v. HAROLD W. CLARK, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Jul 19, 2018

Citations

Civil Action No. 3:18CV03-HEH (E.D. Va. Jul. 19, 2018)

Citing Cases

Monaghan Mills v. Manufacturing Company

"`The right of the stoppage in transitu is extinguished only by actual and complete delivery of the goods…