Clarence T. Fox, Jr. v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. Florida
• Decided: April 24, 2026
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00146
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CLARENCE T. FOX, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:25-cv-146-AW-MAF

EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Clarence T. Fox, Jr., the pro se plaintiff, sued three credit reporting agencies. After identifying defects in Fox’s initial complaint and amended complaint, the magistrate judge directed repleading. The second amended complaint (ECF No. 7) is the operative complaint. Defendants jointly moved to dismiss. ECF No. 25. The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation concluding the court should grant the motion and dismiss the case. ECF No. 28. No party has filed any objection to the report and recommendation. After careful consideration, I now adopt the report and recommendation and incorporate it into this order. I agree that Fox has not plausibly stated any claim. His vague and conclusory allegations are insufficient.1

1 Because Fox insufficiently alleged other elements, the magistrate judge did not reach the sufficiency of Fox’s allegations regarding harm. ECF No. 28 at 12. The motion to dismiss (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED. The clerk will enter a judgment that says, “This case is dismissed on the merits for failure to state a claim.”

The clerk will then close the file. SO ORDERED on April 24, 2026. s/ Allen Winsor Chief United States District Judge

Defendants had argued Fox had alleged no concrete injury. ECF No. 25 at 7. Even if this true, a merits dismissal (as opposed to a jurisdictional dismissal) is still warranted. Harm from misreporting is an element of the cause of action, so the court “assume[s] the element is satisfied for jurisdictional purposes.” Maron v. Chief Fin. Officer of Fla., 136 F.4th 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 2025); see also Brownback v. King, 592 U.S. 209, 218 n.8 (2021) (“In cases such as this one where a plaintiff fails to plausibly allege an element that is both a merit element of a claim and a jurisdictional element, the district court may dismiss the claim under Rule 12(b)(1) or Rule 12(b)(6). Or both.”).