United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
TOMMY W. DIXON, Plaintiff,
C. ALLEN, et. al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION (DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE)
HENRY E. HUDSON, District Judge.
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 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). The Complaint fails to identify the particular constitutional right that was violated by the Defendants' conduct. Plaintiffs current allegations also 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 13, 2015 (ECF No. 15), the Court directed Plaintiff to submit a particularized complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date ofentry thereof. The Court warned Plaintiffthat thefailure to submit theparticularized complaint would result in the dismissal of the action.
More than fourteen (14) days have elapsed since the entry of the February 13, 2015 Memorandum Order. Plaintifffailed tosubmit a particularized complaint or otherwise responded to the February 13, 2015 Memorandum Order. ...