Richardson v. Navient Solutions, Inc.
OPINION AND ORDER adopting 30 Report and Recommendation, granting 14 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 9/26/2017. (cbru, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Robert Jerome Richardson,
Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-1337-CMC
OPINION AND ORDER
Navient Solutions, Inc.,
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint alleging violations
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. ECF No. 1. Defendant Navient Solutions, Inc. (“Defendant”)
filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). ECF No.
14. A Roseboro order was entered by the court and mailed to Plaintiff, advising Plaintiff of the
importance of a dispositive motion and the need for Plaintiff to file an adequate response. ECF
No. 15. Plaintiff filed his response in opposition. ECF No. 28. Defendant filed a reply. ECF No.
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2), D.S.C., this
matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings
and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On September 1, 2017, the Magistrate Judge
issued a Report recommending Defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted. ECF No. 30. The
Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the
Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Plaintiff has filed no objections, and the
time to do to has passed.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo
determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection
is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made
by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). The court reviews the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection.
See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that
“in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but
instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept
the recommendation.”) (citation omitted).
After consideration of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge, the court agrees with the Report’s recommendation Defendant’s motion
to dismiss be granted. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(3) does not provide a private right of action. While
§ 1681s-2(b) does provide a private right of action, Plaintiff has not alleged he has disputed the
alleged error on his report to the credit reporting agencies, as necessary to trigger the obligations
under § 2(b). As noted in the Report, Plaintiff’s state law claims are not cognizable. Accordingly,
the court adopts the Report by reference in this Order. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No.
14) is granted and this matter is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
September 26, 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?