# Bond

> District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · October 17, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11172840

## Case

- **Full name:** Jasmine Bond v. Experian Information Solutions
- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 17, 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/11172840

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JASMINE BOND,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23-CV-1533

v. (MEHALCHICK, J.)

EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS,

Defendant.

ORDER
Plaintiff Jasmine Bond (“Bond”) initiated this action against Experian Information
Solutions (“Experian”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on June 29, 2023. (Doc. 2, at 2). On that same day, Bond also filed a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 1, at 1). On September 8, 2023, this matter was transferred to
this Court. (Doc. 5, at 3). On December 19, 2023, Magistrate Judge Daryl F. Bloom granted
Bond’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and issued a summons for purposes of a proper
and timely service. (Doc. 7). Bond failed to serve Experian within 90 days and subsequently,
upon this Court’s Order, failed to show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed.
(Doc. 9; Doc. 10). On June 24, 2025, Judge Bloom issued a Report and Recommendation
(the “Report”) recommending that Bond’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice for
failure to affect proper service under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc.
10). No objections have been filed to the Report, and the time to do so has passed. As such,
the Court will ADOPT the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. (Doc. 10).
“A district court may ‘designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings, including
evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and
recommendations for the disposition’ of certain matters pending before the court.” Brown v.
Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)). Within fourteen
days of being served a report and recommendation, “any party may serve and file written
objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When a party timely files objections, the district court is to conduct a de
novo review of the challenged portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings unless the objection
is “not timely or not specific.” Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6–7 (3d Cir.1984); 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). The Court may then “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and
recommendations.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “Although the standard is de novo, the extent of
review is committed to the sound discretion of the district judge, and the court may rely on
the recommendations of the magistrate judge to the extent it deems proper.” Rahman v.
Gartley, No. CV 3:23-363, 2024 WL 555894, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2024) (citing United v.
Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)). For those sections of the report and recommendation to
which no objection is made, the court should, as a matter of good practice, “satisfy itself that
there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. Adv. Comm. Note Rule 72(b).

The Court agrees with the sound reasoning in Judge Bloom’s Report and finds no clear
error on the face of the record. (Doc. 10). As such, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the
Report (Doc. 10) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY as the decision of the Court. This matter
is now DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is instructed to CLOSE this case.

BY THE COURT:

Date: October 17, 2025 s/ Karoline Mehalchick
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11172840. Public record. Not legal advice.