Edwards

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

WESTERN DIVISION

THOMAS EDWARDS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) No. 2:25-cv-02328-TLP-tmp

v. )

) JURY DEMAND

OPENSKY CAPITAL BANK NA, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pro se Plaintiff Thomas Edwards sued Defendant Opensky Capital Bank NA on March

24, 2025, alleging Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) violations.1 (ECF No. 2.) See 15 U.S.C.

§§ 1681 et seq. Under Administrative Order No. 2013-05, this Court referred the case to Chief

Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham to manage all pretrial matters. Plaintiff then moved to proceed in

forma pauperis. (ECF No. 3.) And Judge Pham granted the Motion. (ECF No. 7.) Judge Pham

then screened the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). (ECF No. 8.) Judge Pham issued his

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in June 2025, recommending that the Court dismiss the

Complaint in part and grant Plaintiff leave to amend. (Id.) For the reasons below, the Court

agrees with Judge Pham’s analysis and conclusion and therefore ADOPTS the R&R.

1 That same day, Plaintiff sued four other defendants under the FRCA. See Edwards v. National

Credit Adjusters, LLC (NCA), No. 2:25-cv-02326-TLP-tmp (W.D. Tenn.); Edwards v. FinWise

Bank, No. 2:25-cv-02332-TLP-tmp (W.D. Tenn.); Edwards v. TransUnion, LLC, 2:25-cv-02334-

TLP-tmp (W.D. Tenn.); Edwards v. First Premier Bank, No. 2:25-cv-02336-TLP-tmp (W.D.

Tenn.).

LEGAL STANDARD

A magistrate judge may submit to a district court judge proposed findings of fact and

recommendations for deciding pretrial matters. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)–(B). And “[w]ithin 14

days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file

specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(b)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If the parties do not object, the district court reviews

the R&R for clear error. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes. And the district court

“may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the

magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

Judge Pham entered his R&R on June 18, 2025. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff did not object,

and the time to do so has now passed. The Court therefore reviews the R&R for clear error.

DISPOSITION

Having reviewed the record, the Court finds no clear error in Judge Pham’s R&R. In

fact, the Court agrees with his well-reasoned analysis.

Plaintiff brought two claims under FCRA. The first claim is that Defendant violated 15

U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a) by reporting misleading information about Plaintiff’s debt, which artificially

extend[ed] the negative impact on Plaintiff’s credit.” (ECF No. 2 at PageID 3.) Judge Pham

correctly recommended that the Court dismiss this claim. That 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 CRA.” Boggio v.

USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 696 F.3d 611, 615 (6th Cir. 2012); see Carter v. Holzman L., PLLC, No.

24-11990, 2025 WL 1065379, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 13, 2025), report and recommendation

adopted, 2025 WL 868615 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 20, 2025) (“The law is clear that there is no private

cause of action for consumers against furnishers of information for failure to comply with §

1681-s2(a).” (citing Boggio, 696 F.3d at 615)).

Plaintiff’s second claim is that Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b). (ECF No. 2 at

PageID 3.) That is because after Plaintiff disputed the alleged inaccuracies with credit bureaus,

Defendant “failed to conduct a reasonable investigation and continued reporting [the] inaccurate

data.” (Id.) Unlike § 1681s-2(a), § 1681s-2(b) creates a private cause of action. See Brown v.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 507 F. App’x 543, 547 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Boggio, 696 F.3d at 615–

16). And as Judge Pham correctly noted, to state a claim under § 1681s-2(b), a complaint must

plausibly allege that the plaintiff disputed an inaccuracy with a consumer reporting agency, that

the agency notified the defendant-furnisher of that dispute, and that the defendant-furnisher then

violated a statutory duty under § 1681s-2(b)(1)(A)–(E). See, e.g., Rajapakse v. Credit

Acceptance Corp., No. 19-1192, 2021 WL 3059755, at *2 (6th Cir. Mar. 5, 2021).

Judge Pham found that Plaintiff fails to allege a critical element here. That is, he does

not allege that any consumer agency notified Defendant about his claim of an inaccuracy. (ECF

No. 8 at PageID 20 (“‘Absent this essential element,’ the undersigned finds that Edwards’s

complaint fails to state a claim under § 1681s-2(b).” (quoting Green v. Navy Fed. Credit Union,

No. 3:24-cv-632, 2024 WL 4564421, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 24, 2024)). But because he

“otherwise alleges several elements of a § 1681s-2(b) claim,” Judge Pham recommended that the

Court give Plaintiff a second chance. (Id.) The Court agrees, and Plaintiff may amend his §

1681s-2(b) claim. Having found no clear error, the Court therefore ADOPTS the R&R’s

recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The Court has reviewed Judge Pham’s R&R and finds no clear error. And so the Court

ADOPTS the R&R’s recommendation and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s § 1681s-2(a) claim. The

Court further DIRECTS Plaintiff to amend his § 1681s-2(b) claim within thirty days from entry

of this Order. If Plaintiff fails to amend his complaint timely, the Court may dismiss the claim

under Rule 41 for failure to prosecute.

SO ORDERED, this 15th day of December, 2025.

s/Thomas L. Parker

THOMAS L. PARKER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE