IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division CARL ODELL VARNER, JR., ) Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:19CV872—HEH DEPT. OF CORR NOTTOWAY CORRECTIONAL CENTER, ) Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION (Dismissing Action Without Prejudice) Plaintiff, a former Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

action. In order to state a viable claim under

, 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,

(4th Cir. 1998) (citing

). 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,

, at *2—3 (D.S.C. Jan. 22, 2013) (citations omitted) (internal quotations omitted) (explaining that the plaintiffs “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,

, at *1 (4th Cir. Jan. 13, 2000) (citations omitted) (affirming the 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. Plaintiffs 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,

(2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 US. 41, 47 (1957)). Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on July 29, 2020, the Court directed Plaintiff to submit a particularized complaint within thirty (30) 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 thirty (30) days have elapsed since the entry of the July 29, 2020 Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond to the July 29, 2020 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be dismissed without prejudice. An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. AWW [s/ HENRY E. HUDSON Date: Se et. £2020 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Richmond, Virginia