Garrison v. Equifax Info. Solutions et al

Filing 82

ORDER Adopting 33 Report and Recommendation for 46 Motion to Dismiss filed by Sage Telecom. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (AChu)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHAEL GARRISON,
Plaintiff,
v.
EQUIFAX INFO. SOLUTIONS,
et al.,

Case No. 15-12880
Hon. Terrence G. Berg
Hon. David R. Grand

Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION (DKT. 66) AND GRANTING
DEFENDANT SAGE TELECOM’S MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. 46)
This is a Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.) case. On March
28, 2016, the Court referred all pre-trial matters to Magistrate Judge David R.
Grand (Dkt. 29). On September 6, 2016, Defendant Sage Telecom filed a motion to
dismiss (Dkt. 46). Plaintiff filed a response (Dkt. 64), and Defendant Sage filed a
reply (Dkt. 65). On November 21, 2016, Magistrate Judge Grand issued a report
and recommendation, recommending that Defendant Sage’s motion be granted.
The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s report and
recommendation. The law provides that either party may serve and file written
objections “[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy” of the report and
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff filed timely objections (Dkt. 73).
The Court will make a “de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to
which objection is made.” Id.

The crux of Magistrate Judge Grand’s recommendation to dismiss Defendant
Sage from this lawsuit is that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. 1) fails to plead a viable
cause of action against Defendant Sage. The Complaint asserts two causes of action
against Defendant Sage – Count IV (a FCRA claim, under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s2(a)(1)(B)) and Count V (intentional infliction of emotional distress). As to Count
IV, Magistrate Judge Grand found that in order to properly state a claim for relief
under the FCRA, Plaintiff must plead facts showing that he notified Defendant
Sage of “specific information” that was, “in fact, inaccurate,” and that Defendant
Sage nevertheless reported that inaccurate information to a consumer reporting
agency, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(B), or alternatively, that Defendant Sage “received
notice” under § 1681i(a)(2) and “failed to conduct an investigation” and “report the
results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency,” among other
required steps. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b). Magistrate Judge Grand concluded that the
Complaint failed to make these required allegations. In his objections, Plaintiff
argues, in conclusory fashion, that he has alleged that “Sage Telecom knowingly
reinserted false information into the Plaintiff’s credit report.” The Court has
reviewed the Complaint, however, and this is not the case – there is no such
allegation in the Complaint. Rather, as properly noted by Magistrate Grand,
Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that it was Defendant Experian who reinserted
the disputed delinquent account on his credit report, and not Defendant Sage (Dkt.
1, ¶ 17). As such, Magistrate Judge Grand correctly concluded that Plaintiff has
failed to state a viable FCRA claim against Defendant Sage. Thus, the

2

recommendation to dismiss Plaintiff’s FCRA claim against Defendant Sage is
accepted and adopted, and that claim is dismissed.
As to Count V (intentional infliction of emotional distress), Plaintiff does not
mention this claim in his objections to the report and recommendation. As such, the
Court finds that Plaintiff has waived any objection regarding this claim. The Court
does, however, note that it has carefully reviewed Magistrate Judge Grand’s
recommendation to dismiss this claim, and finds that it is very well-reasoned and
sound. As such, the recommendation to dismiss this claim is also accepted and
adopted, and this claim is dismissed.
Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Grand’s November 21, 2016 report and
recommendation is hereby ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED as this Court’s findings
of fact and conclusions of law, and Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. 73) are
OVERRULED. Defendant Sage’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 46) is hereby
GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Sage are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2017

s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3