Grayson v. Equifax Credit Information Services, Inc. et al

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS ORDER ON APPELLATE ISSUES: 13 7 8 . Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 3/12/2025. (gkp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
MICHAEL C. GRAYSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
No. 1:24-cv-1077-STA-jay
)
EQUIFAX CREDIT INFORMATION
)
SERVICES, INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS
ORDER ON APPELLATE ISSUES
______________________________________________________________________________
On February 24, 2025, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a report and
recommendation (ECF No. 13) that the Court grant separate Motions to Dismiss filed by the United
States of America (ECF No. 7) 1 and Defendants Equifax Information Services LLC, Seyfarth
Shaw LLP, Adam Hill, Eric Barton, and Alex Meier (ECF No. 8). The Magistrate Judge has
recommended that the Court grant the government’s Motion to Dismiss the case without prejudice
for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Magistrate Judge has further recommended
that the Court grant the remaining Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim. The
Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition of the case would result in the dismissal of the action
in its entirety. Plaintiff had 14 days from the service of the Magistrate Judge’s report in which to
file objections. Plaintiff has not objected to the report and its recommended conclusions of law,
and the time to object has now expired.

1

The government substituted itself for Defendants U.S. District Judge Diane Gujarati and
U.S. Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom.
1

Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636 to relieve the burden on the federal judiciary by
permitting the assignment of district court duties to magistrate judges. See United States v. Curtis,
237 F.3d 598, 602 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 869-70
(1989)); see also Baker v. Peterson, 67 F. App’x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003). The United States
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee adopted Administrative Order 2013-05 for
this very purpose, referring all cases filed by non-prisoner plaintiffs to a United States Magistrate
Judge for management of all pretrial matters. The Magistrate Judge has recommended that the
Court dismiss Plaintiff’s case sua sponte as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). While
“a district judge must determine de novo any part of a Magistrate Judge’s disposition that has been
properly objected to,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the district court is not
required to review (under a de novo or any other standard) “any issue that is not the subject of an
objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). The district court should adopt the findings
and rulings of the Magistrate Judge to which no specific objection is filed. Id. at 151.
In the absence of any objection to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, the Court
hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation. The United States of
America’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims against the government are
dismissed without prejudice. The Motion to Dismiss filed by the remaining Defendants is also
GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims against the remaining Defendants are dismissed with prejudice.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment.
The next issue to be addressed is whether the Court should authorize Plaintiff to appeal this
decision in forma pauperis. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal may not be taken in forma
pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith. “‘Good faith’ has
been defined as a requirement that an appeal present a nonfrivolous question for review.” Cruz v.

2

Hauck, 404 U.S. 59, 62 (1971) (Douglas, J., concurring). The good faith standard is an objective
one. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). The same considerations that lead the
Court to dismiss this case, Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies on his claims
against the government, his Complaint’s failure to state a claim against the remaining Defendants,
and his failure to make any timely objection to the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation,
also compel the conclusion that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. It is therefore
CERTIFIED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal in this matter by Plaintiff would
not be taken in good faith and Plaintiff may not proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit’s decisions in McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 612–13 (6th Cir. 1997) and Floyd v. United States Postal Serv., 105
F.3d 274, 276 (6th Cir. 1997) apply to any appeal filed by Plaintiff in this case. If Plaintiff files a
notice of appeal, he must pay the entire $605 filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1913 and 1917.
By filing a notice of appeal, Plaintiff becomes liable for the full amount of the filing fee, regardless
of the subsequent progress of the appeal. The entire filing fee must be paid within thirty (30) days
of the filing of the notice of appeal. If Plaintiff fails to comply with the above assessment of the
appellate filing fee within thirty (30) days 4 of the filing of the notice of appeal or the entry of this
order, whichever occurred later, the Court will notify the Sixth Circuit, which will dismiss the
appeal. If the appeal is dismissed, it will not be reinstated once the fee is paid. McGore, 114 F.3d
at 610.

4

The district court may extend this deadline one time by thirty (30) days if the motion to
extend is filed before the expiration of the original deadline. McGore, 114 F.3d at 610.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: March 12, 2025

4