Edwards v. Mission Lane, LLC

• Court: District Court, W.D. Tennessee
• Decided: August 15, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02325
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION

THOMAS EDWARDS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 2:25-cv-02325-TLP-tmp v. ) ) JURY DEMAND MISSION LANE, LLC, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pro se Plaintiff Thomas Edwards sued here on March 24, 2025, alleging that Defendant Mission Lane violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. (ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff brings a claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a) and another under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b). (Id.) Under Administrative Order 2013-05, the Court referred this case to Chief Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham (“Judge Pham”) for management of all pretrial matters. As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis in this matter, Judge Pham screened the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and issued an R&R in June 2025. (ECF No. 8.) In the R&R, Judge Pham recommends the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s § 1681s-2(a) claim and give Plaintiff leave to amend his § 1681s-2(b) claim. (Id.) LEGAL STANDARD A magistrate judge may submit to a district court judge proposed findings of fact and recommendations for deciding pretrial matters. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)–(B). And “[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If the parties do not object, the district court reviews the R&R for clear error. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee notes. And the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Judge Pham entered his R&R in June 2025.

Neither party objected, and the time to do so has now passed. The Court therefore reviews the R&R for clear error. DISPOSITION AND CONCLUSION Having reviewed the record, the Court finds no clear error in Judge Pham’s R&R. The Court agrees with Judge Pham that Plaintiff’s claim under § 1681s-2(a) should be dismissed. As Judge Pham points out, § 1681s-2(a) provides no private cause of action. See Boggio v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 696 F.3d 611, 615 (6th Cir. 2012). The Court also agrees with Judge Pham that the Court should give Plaintiff leave to amend his § 1681s-2(b) claim. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R, DISMISSES Plaintiff’s § 1681s-2(a) claim with prejudice, and provides Plaintiff leave to amend his § 1681s-2(b) claim. Plaintiff has 30

days from the entry of this Order to amend his § 1681s-2(b) claim. SO ORDERED, this 15th day of August, 2025. s/Thomas L. Parker THOMAS L. PARKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE