# Cothran v. Experian, LLC

> District Court, W.D. Tennessee · August 9, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10441093

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Tennessee
- **Decided:** August 9, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10441093

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________

MONTRICIA COTHRAN, )

)
Plaintiff, )
)
)
V. ) Case No: 2:22-cv-2307-JTF-atc
)
EXPERIAN, LLC, EQUIFAX, LLC, )
and TRANSUNION, LLC, )
)
Defendants. )
______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING CASE
______________________________________________________________________________

Before the Court is Plaintiff Montricia Cothran’s pro se complaint against Defendants
Experian, LLC, Equifax, LLC, and Transunion, LLC, for damages allegedly caused by certain
entries on her credit reports. (ECF No. 1.) The matter was assigned to a United States Magistrate
Judge for screening and management pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and Local Rule
4.1(b)(2). On May 19, 2022, the Magistrate Judge entered an order directing Plaintiff to file the
correct in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application or pay the $402 filing fee within thirty (30) days.
(ECF No. 6.) 1 The order indicated that Plaintiff had inadvertently submitted the short form in
forma pauperis application for prisoners which does not provide the Court with sufficient financial
information to determine if Plaintiff was unable to pay the civil filing fee. (Id. at 2.) The deadline
for Plaintiff to either return the correct long IFP form or pay the $402 civil filing fee was June 20,

1 A copy of the applicable IFP form and the order directing Plaintiff to complete and return were mailed to Plaintiff
on May 20, 2022 by the Clerk’s office.
1
2022. (ECF No. 6.) On July 21, 2022, the Magistrate Judge entered a report and recommendation
that the case be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to timely comply with the order to pay the requisite
filing fee or submit the appropriate IFP form. (ECF No. 7.)
Congress passed 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) “to relieve some of the burden on the federal courts by

permitting the assignment of certain district court duties to magistrates.” United States v. Curtis,
237 F.3d 598, 602 (6th Cir. 2001). Pursuant to the provision, magistrate judges may hear and
determine any pretrial matter pending before the Court, except various dispositive motions. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Upon hearing a pending matter, “the magistrate judge must enter a
recommended disposition, including, if appropriate, proposed findings of fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(1); see also Baker v. Peterson, 67 F. App’x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003). Any party who
disagrees with a magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendation may file written
objections to the report and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). However, “[w]hen no
timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of
the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (advisory

committee notes). The district court is not required to review and “should adopt[,] the findings and
rulings of the Magistrate Judge to which no specific objection is filed.” Brown v. Bd. of Educ. of
Shelby Cty. Sch., 47 F. Supp. 3d 665, 674 (W.D. Tenn. 2014) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
149 (1985)).
In this case, Plaintiff was advised that dismissal of this action would follow, without further
notice, if she failed to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s Order to submit the correct IFP form or
pay the requisite filing fee.2 (ECF No. 7, 2.) The Sixth Circuit held that dismissal for failure to

2 Twenty-eight U.S.C. § 1914(a) requires a civil filing fee of $350. However, pursuant to § 1914(b), “[t]he clerk shall
collect from the parties such additional fees only as are prescribed by the Judicial Conference of the United States.”
2
prosecute is warranted where the Court affords a plaintiff a reasonable period of time to comply
with orders before the dismissal occurs. Harris v. Callwood, 844 F.2d 1254 (6th Cir. 1988); Sepia
Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Toledo, 462 F. 2d 1315 (6th Cir. 1972) (per curiam).
Upon a review, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has been afforded more than a reasonable

period of time to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s order; but has simply chosen not to comply.
Plaintiff was advised that objections to the report and recommendation were due within fourteen
(14) days or by August 4, 2022. As noted above, Plaintiff has failed to pay the filing fee or submit
the appropriate IFP form. She has also failed to raise any objections to the report and
recommendation to dismiss her case and the time to do so has passed.
Therefore, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation, ECF No. 7,
and dismisses this case without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of August 2022.

s/John T. Fowlkes, Jr.
JOHN T. FOWLKES, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Effective May 1, 2013, an additional administrative fee of $52 for filing any civil case, except for cases seeking habeas
cor pus and cases in which the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. As a
result, the total filing fee for civil cases is $402. As noted, the Magistrate Judge directed Plaintiff to either return the
correct long IFP form or pay the $402 civil filing fee by June 20, 2022.
3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10441093. Public record. Not legal advice.