# Edwards v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water

> District Court, W.D. Tennessee · June 18, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11103232

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Tennessee
- **Decided:** June 18, 2025
- **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/11103232

## Opinion text

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

THOMAS EDWARDS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 25-cv-2333-MSN-tmp
)
MEMPHIS LIGHT, GAS, & WATER, )
)
Defendant. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is pro se plaintiff Thomas Edwards’s
complaint.1 Because Edwards is proceeding in forma pauperis, the
undersigned must screen the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2).2 For the reasons below, the undersigned recommends
that Edwards’s complaint be dismissed in part and that he be
given leave to amend his complaint.
I. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
Edwards filed his complaint on March 24, 2025, alleging
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C.
§§ 1681 et seq. (ECF No. 2.) Edwards alleges that defendant

1Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 2013-05, this case has been
referred to the United States magistrate judge for management of
all pretrial matters for determination or report and
recommendation, as appropriate.

2The undersigned granted Edwards leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on June 18, 2025. (ECF No. 9.)
Memphis Light, Gas, & Water (“MLGW”) “is a utility provider”
that “furnishes consumer account information to credit reporting
agencies.” (Id. at PageID 2.) According to Edwards, he “opened

an account with MLGW on September 11, 2018. (Id.) Edwards
alleges that MLGW has reported “incomplete and inaccurate
information, including: [r]eporting a charge-off despite a $0
balance[;] [n]o indication of whether the account is open or
closed[;] and [an] [i]ncorrect high balance of $0 despite
charge-off status.” (Id.) He claims that MLGW “should no longer
be reporting” his account “[i]f the account was sold or
transferred to a collection agency.” (Id.) Edwards claims that
he ”disputed the inaccurate reporting,” and that “MLGW failed to
correct or remove the misleading data.”(Id.)
Edwards seeks to bring two claims under the FCRA. First, he
alleges that MLGW violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a) by reporting

“incomplete and inaccurate consumer account information.” (Id.
at PageID 3.) Second, he alleges that MLGW violated 15 U.S.C. §
1681s-2(b) because it “fail[ed] to conduct a reasonable
investigation.” (Id.) As a result, Edwards claims that he has
suffered ongoing harm to his creditworthiness. (Id.) As relief,
he requests statutory, actual, and punitive damages as well as
attorneys’ fees and costs. (Id.)
II. PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Legal Standard
This court is required to screen in forma pauperis

complaints and must dismiss any complaint, or any portion
thereof, if the action: (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii)
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii)
seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii). To avoid
dismissal for failure to state a claim, “a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); see also Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), 12(b)(6). “A
claim is plausible on its face if the ‘plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference

that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.’” Ctr.
for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Napolitano, 648 F.3d 365, 369
(6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). Without
factual allegations in support, mere legal conclusions are not
entitled to the assumption of truth. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
Pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers and are thus liberally
construed. Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011)
(citing Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 712 (6th Cir. 2002)).
Even so, pro se litigants must adhere to the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, see Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir.
1989), and the court cannot create a claim that has not been

spelled out in a pleading, see Brown v. Matauszak, 415 F. App’x
608, 613 (6th Cir. 2011); Payne v. Sec’y of Treas., 73 F. App’x
836, 837 (6th Cir. 2003).
B. Analysis
Edwards asserts two claims under § 1681s-2 of the FCRA.
“[The] FCRA exists ‘to ensure fair and accurate credit
reporting, promote efficiency in the banking system, and protect
consumer privacy.’” Boggio v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 696 F.3d 611,
614 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Safeco Ins. Co. v. Burr, 551 U.S.
47, 52 (2007)). “[Section] 1681s–2 is designed to prevent
‘furnishers of information’ from spreading inaccurate consumer-
credit information.”3 Id. And “[it] works in two phases.” Id.

First, under § 1681s-2(a), “it imposes a duty to provide
accurate information.” Carter, 2025 WL 1065379, at *4 (citing
LaBreck, 2016 WL 6927454, at *2). Second, under § 1681s-2(b), it
imposes “a duty to undertake an investigation upon receipt of

3“While § 1681s-2 does not define ‘furnisher,’ courts have
defined the term as ‘any entity which transmits information
concerning a particular debt owed by a particular customer to
consumer reporting agencies.’” Carter v. Holzman L., PLLC, No.
CV 24-11990, 2025 WL 1065379, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 13, 2025),
report and recommendation adopted, 2025 WL 868615 (E.D. Mich.
Mar. 20, 2025) (quoting LaBreck v. Mid-Mich Credit Bureau, 2016
WL 6927454, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 28, 2016)).
notice of dispute from a [consumer reporting agency].” Id.
(citing LaBreck, 2016 WL 6927454, at *2).
1. Section 1681s-2(a) Claim

Edwards alleges that MLGW violated § 1681s-2(a) by
reporting incomplete and inaccurate information. However, §
1681s-2(a) does not create a private cause of action. Boggio,
696 F.3d at 615 (“This is because § 1681s–2(c) expressly
precludes consumers from enforcing the requirement that
furnishers, under § 1681s–2(a), initially provide complete and
accurate consumer information to a [consumer reporting
agency].”); see also Carter, 2025 WL 1065379, at *4 (“The law is
clear that there is no private cause of action for consumers
against furnishers of information for failure to comply with §
1681[s-2(a)].” (citing Boggio, 696 F.3d at 615)). Because §
1681s-2(a) does not provide a private cause of action, the

undersigned recommends that Edwards’s claim under that provision
be dismissed.
2. Section 1681s-2(b) Claim
Edwards also alleges that MLGW violated § 1681s-2(b) by
failing to conduct a reasonable investigation and correct
inaccuracies. The FCRA imposes several duties on furnishers,
including a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation into
disputed information. Boggio, 696 F.3d at 616 (citing 15 U.S.C.
§ 1681s-2(b)(1)(A); Johnson v. MBNA Am. Bank, NA, 357 F.3d 426,
430–31 (4th Cir. 2004); Chiang v. Verizon New Eng. Inc., 595
F.3d 26, 37 (1st Cir. 2010); Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP,
584 F.3d 1147, 1155-57 (9th Cir. 2009); Westra v. Credit Control

of Pinellas, 409 F.3d 825, 827 (7th Cir. 2005)). But “[a]
private cause of action against a furnisher of information does
not arise until a consumer reporting agency provides proper
notice of a dispute.” Brown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 507 F.
App'x 543, 547 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Boggio, 696 F.3d at 615-
16). Thus, to plausibly state a claim under § 1681s-2(b), a
plaintiff must at least allege that they disputed an inaccuracy
with a consumer reporting agency, that the consumer reporting
agency then notified the furnisher of that dispute, and that the
furnisher then violated a statutory duty under § 1681s-
2(b)(1)(A)-(E). See Rajapakse v. Credit Acceptance Corp., No.
19-1192, 2021 WL 3059755, at *2 (6th Cir. Mar. 5, 2021) (citing

15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(A)-(E); Boggio, 696 F.3d at 616-18)
(affirming dismissal of complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) because
plaintiff “did not allege that [defendant] violated any of the
statutory duties to investigate and properly report information
once notified of her dispute related to [defendant]”); see also
Green v. Cont. Callers, Inc., No. 3:21-CV-2005, 2022 WL 2209436,
at *2 (N.D. Ohio June 21, 2022) (citing Rajapakse, 2021 WL
3059755, at *2) (finding that plaintiff failed to state a §
1681s-2(b) claim).
Here, Edwards vaguely alleges that MLGW “furnishes consumer
account information to credit reporting agencies,” that he
“disputed the inaccurate reporting,” and that MLGW failed to

properly investigate. (ECF No. 2 at PageID 2-3.) But he does not
allege that he reported the inaccuracies to a consumer reporting
agency or that any consumer reporting agencies notified MLGW
about the dispute. “Absent th[ese] essential element[s],” the
undersigned finds that Edwards’s complaint fails to state a
claim under § 1681s-2(b). Green v. Navy Fed. Credit Union, No.
3:24 CV 632, 2024 WL 4564421, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 24, 2024)
(dismissing complaint where plaintiff failed to allege that the
defendant was notified by a consumer reporting agency). However,
because Edwards otherwise alleges some elements of a § 1681s-
2(b) claim, the undersigned recommends that Edwards be given
leave to amend his complaint in lieu of dismissal as to this

claim.
III. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above, the undersigned recommends that
Edwards’s § 1681s-2(a) claim be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). The undersigned further recommends that Edwards
be given leave to amend his § 1681s-2(b) claim within thirty
days.
Respectfully submitted,
s/Tu M. Pham
TU M. PHAM
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

June 18, 2025
Date

NOTICE
WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS AFTER BEING SERVED WITH A COPY OF THIS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION, ANY PARTY MAY SERVE AND FILE
SPECIFIC WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS. ANY PARTY MAY RESPOND TO ANOTHER PARTY’S
OBJECTIONS WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS AFTER BEING SERVED WITH A
COPY. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2); L.R.
72.1(g)(2). FAILURE TO FILE OBJECTIONS WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS
MAY CONSTITUTE A WAIVER AND/OR FORFEITURE OF OBJECTIONS,
EXCEPTIONS, AND FURTHER APPEAL.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11103232. Public record. Not legal advice.