Hardee v. Virginia Beach Sheriff's Office

• Court: District Court, E.D. Virginia
• Decided: July 15, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00088
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division JOHN T. HARDEE, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:25¢ev88 MUNICIPAL JAIL VIRGINIA BEACH SHERIFF’S OFFICE, 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). Plaintiffs 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 Ail. 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 June 5, 2025, the Court directed Plaintiff to submit a particularized complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of entry thereof. (ECF No. 12 at 2.) The Court warned Plaintiff that the failure to submit a particularized complaint would result in the dismissal of the action.

More than thirty (30) days have elapsed since the entry of the June 5, 2025 Memorandum Order. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond to the June 5, 2025 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: C)] } 5 oe M. Hann Hal / Richmond, Virginia United Statey Di8trict Judge