Patterson v. Fingerhut Direct Marketing

Filing 39

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and granting 33 Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter and enter judgment for the Defendant pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the docket shall reflect that the Court certifies pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)(3)(A) that any appeal of this decision would not be taken In good faith. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 10/16/2013. (APP, ) Copy mailed to Pltf.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA

MISSOULA DIVISION

MICHAEL PAUL PATTERSON,

CV-12-52-M-DLC

Plaintiff,
ORDER
vs.

FILED

FINGERHUT DIRECT
MARKETING,

OCT f 6 2013
Clerk, u.s. Distrk'-' '\\I(t
District Of Mo,
Missoula

Defendant.

United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah Lynch entered Findings and
Recommendation on September 10,2013. Judge Lynch recommended granting
Defendant Bluestem Brands, Inc. d/b/a Fingerhut Direct Marketing's ("Bluestem")
motion for summary judgment (Doc. 33), and dismissing this action. (Doc. 37.)
Plaintiff did not timely object to the Findings and Recommendation, and so has
waived the right to de novo review of the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Court will review the Findings and Recommendation for clear error.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313
(9th Cir. 1981). Clear error exists if the Court is left with a "definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d
422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000).
1

Patterson claims that Bluestem accessed his credit report without proper
authorization in violation of § 1682(b) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").
(Doc. 1.) Bluestem moved for summary judgment on the basis that it had the
authority to access Patterson's credit report for the purpose of making him a firm
offer of credit. (Doc. 33.)
Patterson failed to timely respond to the motion. However, Judge Lynch
conducted a thorough analysis pursuant to the Ninth Circuit's mandate. See

Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding
that a district court may not grant "summary judgment simply because a party fails
to file an opposition or violates a local rule"). Judge Lynch found that the
undisputed evidence demonstrates that Bluestem was in full compliance with the
FCRA requirements. Accordingly, Judge Lynch determined that Bluestem met its
summary judgment burden by showing that since there are no material issues of
fact, it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
After a review of Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendation, I find no
clear error. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendation (Doc.
37) is adopted in full. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 33) is
GRANTED, and Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED.

2

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter and enter judgment for
the Defendant pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the docket shall renect that the Court
certifies pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)(3)(A) that any appeal of this decision
would not be taken In good faith.
Dated this

'''~day of October, 2013.

Dana L. Christensen, Chief Ju ge
United States District Court

3