United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING
MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING COUNTS V AND VI OF
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, AND DISMISSING DEFENDANT ACCESS
L. LUDINGTON United States District Judge
24, 2016, Defendant Trans Union removed this case from the
70-1st Division District Court for Saginaw County, Michigan.
ECF No. 1. Plaintiff Yeska's complaint alleges violations
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act related to certain
“trade lines” that Yeska opened in order to pay
for college. Yeska admits that he never made any payments on
the lines, but disputes the reporting of those trade lines on
his credit reports. All pretrial matters were referred to
Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris. ECF No. 6. Although only
Trans Union was served prior to removal, the other Defendants
were subsequently served. On July 18, 2016, Defendant Access
Group filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 16. In the motion,
Access Group argues that Yeska lacks standing and has failed
to state a claim as regards the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Access Group requests that Counts V and VI of Yeska's
complaint be dismissed.
December 21, 2016, Judge Morris issued a report recommending
that Access Group's motion to dismiss be granted and that
Counts V and VI of Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed
with prejudice. ECF No. 40. In the report, Judge Morris finds
that Yeska has standing to bring this suit, but that Yeska
does not state a claim against Access Group under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act. The report explains that Yeska did not
adequately allege that Access Group received notice that the
credit information was disputed. Likewise, Yeska did not
sufficiently allege damages. For those reasons, Judge Morris
recommends that Access Group's motion to dismiss be
granted and Counts V and VI of the complaint be dismissed.
V and VI of Yeska's complaint are the only claims against
Defendant Access Group. Thus, all claims against Access Group
will be dismissed with prejudice. Access Group will be
dismissed from this suit.
the Magistrate Judge's report explicitly stated that the
parties to this action may object to and seek review of the
recommendation within fourteen days of service of the report,
neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed any objections. The
election not to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's
report releases the Court from its duty to independently
review the record. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149
(1985). The failure to file objections to the report and
recommendation waives any further right to appeal.
it is ORDERED that the magistrate
judge's report and recommendation, ECF No. 40, is
further ORDERED that Defendant Access
Group's motion to dismiss, ECF No. 16, is
further ORDERED that Counts V and VI of
Plaintiff Yeska's Complaint, ECF No. 1, are
DISMISSED with prejudice.
further ORDERED that Defendant Access ...