Davis v. Phillips

W.D. Virginia

Davis v. Phillips

DecidedFebruary 4, 2025

Docket7:24-cv-00528

StatusUnknown

This text of Davis v. Phillips (Davis v. Phillips) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davis v. Phillips, (W.D. Va. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

CLERK'S OFFICE U.S. DIST. CO! AT ROANOKE, VA FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT February 04, 2025 POR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA LAURA A. AUSTIN, CLERK ROANOKE DIVISION BY: s/A. Beeson DEPUTY CLERK TYLIK SAYVON DAVIS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 7:24-cv-00528 ) v. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ) By: Hon. Thomas T. Cullen PHILLIPS ef a/, ) United States District Judge ) Defendants. )

Plaintiff Tylik Sayvon Davis, proceeding pro se, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against three officers and three inmates at Wallens Ridge State Prison. (See Compl. [ECF No. 1].) On December 10, 2024, the Court advised Plaintiff that his complaint failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. (See Order [ECF No. 5].) The Court also advised Plaintiff that “[ljiability under § 1983 is ‘personal, based upon each defendant’s own constitutional violations” and that a § 1983 claim therefore “requires concise factual detail about each defendant’s personal involvement.” Ud. at 1 (quoting Trwlock v. Freeh, 275 P.3d 391, 402 (4th Cir. 2001); Wilcox v. Brown, 877 F.3d 161, 170 (4th Cir. 2017).) The Court therefore ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 30 days that provides sufficient factual detail to state plausible claims for relief against each Defendant. (Id. at 2.) The Court also cautioned Plaintiff that failure to amend within the 30-day period would result in dismissal of his complaint. (id. at 2—3.)

More than 30 days have elapsed, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with the Court’s order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and accompanying Order to Plaintiff. ENTERED this 4th day of February, 2025.

/s/ Thomas T. Cullen________________ HON. THOMAS T. CULLEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CLERK'S OFFICE U.S. DIST. CO! AT ROANOKE, VA FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT February 04, 2025 POR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA LAURA A. AUSTIN, CLERK ROANOKE DIVISION BY: s/A. Beeson DEPUTY CLERK TYLIK SAYVON DAVIS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 7:24-cv-00528 ) v. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ) By: Hon. Thomas T. Cullen PHILLIPS ef a/, ) United States District Judge ) Defendants. )

Plaintiff Tylik Sayvon Davis, proceeding pro se, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against three officers and three inmates at Wallens Ridge State Prison. (See Compl. [ECF No. 1].) On December 10, 2024, the Court advised Plaintiff that his complaint failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. (See Order [ECF No. 5].) The Court also advised Plaintiff that “[ljiability under § 1983 is ‘personal, based upon each defendant’s own constitutional violations” and that a § 1983 claim therefore “requires concise factual detail about each defendant’s personal involvement.” Ud. at 1 (quoting Trwlock v. Freeh, 275 P.3d 391, 402 (4th Cir. 2001); Wilcox v. Brown, 877 F.3d 161, 170 (4th Cir. 2017).) The Court therefore ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 30 days that provides sufficient factual detail to state plausible claims for relief against each Defendant. (Id. at 2.) The Court also cautioned Plaintiff that failure to amend within the 30-day period would result in dismissal of his complaint. (id. at 2—3.)

More than 30 days have elapsed, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with the Court’s order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and accompanying Order to Plaintiff. ENTERED this 4th day of February, 2025.

/s/ Thomas T. Cullen________________ HON. THOMAS T. CULLEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Davis v. Phillips, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-phillips-vawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack