Fluker v. Trans Union, LLC

Filing 14

ORDER Adopting 13 Report and Recommendation, and Dismissing Plaintiff's Pro Se, In Forma Pauperis Complaint Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Signed by District Judge Thomas L. Ludington. (KWin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION
ANTONIO LYNN FLUKER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:24-cv-12738
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
United States District Judge

TRANS UNION, LLC,
Defendant.
_______________________________________/

Honorable Patricia T. Morris
United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, AND DISMISSING
PLAINTIFF’S PRO SE, IN FORMA PAUPERIS COMPLAINT UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915
On October 16, 2024, Plaintiff Antonio Lynn Fluker filed a pro se Complaint alleging
Defendant Trans Union, LLC violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) by failing to
reasonably investigate hard inquiries on Plaintiff’s credit report, which Plaintiff maintains were
“fraudulent” and “inaccurate.” ECF No. 1.
Plaintiff’s complaint was filed in the Southern Division and initially assigned to Judge
Laurie J. Michelson. See ECF No. 1 at PageID.1. On October 16, 2024, Judge Michelson issued
an order directing Plaintiff to show cause why his case should not be dismissed for want of venue,
ECF No. 6, and Plaintiff responded that his complaint “is a companion” to a largely analogous
complaint previously filed in the Northern Division which the undersigned dismissed for lack of
Article III standing in June 2024. Fluker v. TransUnion, LLC, No. 1:22-CV-12240, 2024 WL
3085174 (E.D. Mich. June 21, 2024), appeal dismissed sub nom. Fluker v. Trans Union, LLC, No.
24-1644, 2024 WL 4729428 (6th Cir. Sept. 5, 2024) [hereinafter Fluker I]. Indeed, in Fluker I, this
Court dismissed Plaintiff’s analogous claims against Trans Union because he did not show that
Trans Union caused him any economic or monetary harm and the non-economic damages he

alleged “were insufficiently concrete and particularized.”1 Id. at *3-4; see also id. at *8 (“As with
all of Plaintiff’s alleged injuries, he says much but shows little.”). Given Plaintiff’s response, the
above-captioned case was reassigned to the undersigned, ECF No. 10, who promptly referred all
pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris. ECF No. 11.
On December 5, 2024, Judge Morris granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) ECF No. 12. And on December 19, 2024, Judge Morris issued a report (R&R)
recommending this Court sua sponte dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for frivolity and failure to state
a claim under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act’s screening requirement, 28 U.S.C. §§
1915(e)(2)(B); 1915A(b)(1), which “applies equally to both prisoner and non-prisoner plaintiffs”
who proceed IFP, Giles v. Michigan Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 1:24-CV-10136, 2024 WL
1478861, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 5, 2024) (citing Baker v. Wayne Cnty. Fam. Indep. Agency, 75 F.
App'x 501, 502 (6th Cir. 2003)). ECF No. 13. Specifically, Judge Morris concluded that “[t]he
instant case should be dismissed for the same reason that Fluker’s claims against Trans Union were
dismissed in Fluker I, namely that Fluker has failed to establish Article III standing.” Id. at
PageID.30. Indeed, Judge Morris aptly observed that Plaintiff’s alleged injuries in this case are
“the same or substantially similar” to those this “Court ruled were insufficient to establish Article
III standing in Fluker I.” Id. at PageID.31.
In accordance with Civil Rule 72, Judge Morris provided the Parties 14 days to object, id.
at PageID.32, but they did not do so. Thus, the Parties have forfeited their right to appeal Judge

1

Fluker I remains pending because in that case, unlike here, Plaintiff additionally pursued claims
against Equifax Information Services, LLC, and these claims are stayed pending the certification
of a putative class action pending against Equifax in the Northern District of Georgia. See Fluker
I, at *1.
-2-

Morris’s findings. See Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530–31 (6th Cir. 2019) (citing Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)). There is no clear error in Judge Morris’s R&R.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris’s Report and
Recommendation, ECF No. 13, is ADOPTED.
Further, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED.
This is a final order and closes the above-captioned case.
Dated: January 7, 2025

s/Thomas L. Ludington
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
United States District Judge

-3-