Laulopez Estate v. Transunion Consumer Services, LLC et al

Filing 10

ORDER - it is hereby ORDERED that the court declines to adopt the report (Doc. 9) to the extent it recommends dismissal for failure to comply with a court order pursuant to Rule 41(b). Laulopez's complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED for failure to st ate a claim for which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Any appeal from this order is deemed to be frivolous and not taken in good faith. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case. Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 2/6/2024 (mw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOSE NEMESIO LAULOPEZ
ESTATE,
Plaintiff
v.
TRANSUNION CONSUMER
SERVICES, LLC, EQUIFAX, and
EXPERIAN,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-1242
(Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 6th day of February, 2024, upon consideration of the
memorandum and order (Docs. 7, 8) issued by Chief Magistrate Judge Karoline
Mehalchick on October 30, 2023, in which Judge Mehalchick screened the pro se
complaint of plaintiff Jose Laulopez, opined that it failed to state a claim for which
relief may be granted under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.,
the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3730, and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, 15 U.S.C.
§ 6801 et seq.,, and granted Laulopez leave to file an amended complaint within
28 days, (see Doc. 8), and further upon consideration of the report (Doc. 9) filed on
January 18, 2024, wherein Judge Mehalchick recommends that the court dismiss
Laulopez’s complaint for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b) based upon Laulopez’s failure to comply with the court’s order to
file an amended pleading, but the court observing that, while it does appear from
the lack of filings on the docket by Laulopez since he initiated this action in July
2023 that he may have abandoned this lawsuit, it remains his prerogative to stand

on his initial complaint if he so chooses, and thus concluding that dismissal for
failure to prosecute based on his ostensible election to do so is not appropriate, but
the court further concluding that dismissal of Laulopez’s complaint for failure to
state a claim for which relief may be granted is appropriate for the reasons set forth
in Judge Mehalchick’s initial memorandum, (Doc. 7 at 5-9), which we incorporate
herein in full, and the court observing that Laulopez has not appealed Judge
Mehalchick’s initial order, see FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a), nor has he objected to the
report, see FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2), and, following an independent review of
Laulopez’s complaint, the court being in agreement with and adopting in full Judge
Mehalchick’s analysis and concluding that the complaint fails to state a claim for
which relief may be granted, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and that granting further
leave to amend would be futile because Laulopez previously has been granted leave
to amend and did not file an amended pleading, see Grayson v. Mayview State
Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The court declines to adopt the report (Doc. 9) to the extent it
recommends dismissal for failure to comply with a court order
pursuant to Rule 41(b).

2.

Laulopez’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED for failure to state a
claim for which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

3.

Any appeal from this order is deemed to be frivolous and not taken in
good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

4.

The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.
/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner
United States District Judge
Middle District of Pennsylvania