Thompson v. Bank of America, N.A.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION BRYCE THOMPSON, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 24-13149 v. Nancy G. Edmunds United States District Judge BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al., David R. Grand Defendants. United States Magistrate Judge ________________________________/ REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS (ECF Nos. 14, 22) In this civil action, pro se plaintiff Bryce Thompson (“Thompson”) alleges that defendants Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”), and three credit reporting agencies – Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Equifax Information Services, LLC, and Trans Union, LLC (the “CRAs,” and, with BANA, the “Defendants”) – violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) related to their handling of an alleged missed credit card payment by Thompson. The Defendants moved to dismiss Thompson’s complaint (ECF Nos. 14, 22) and Thompson thereafter moved to amend his complaint (ECF No. 30).1 On today’s date, the Court issued an Order granting Thompson’s motion for leave to amend his complaint. (ECF No. 36). For the detailed reasons stated in that Order, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 14, 22) be DENIED.

1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the case has been referred to the undersigned for all pretrial purposes. (ECF No. 19).

Dated: July 31, 2025 s/David R. Grand Ann Arbor, Michigan DAVID R. GRAND United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and Recommendation, but are required to act within fourteen (14) days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505, 508 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981). The filing of objections which raise some issues, but fail to raise others with specificity, will not preserve all the objections a party might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Secretary of HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be served upon this magistrate judge. A party may respond to another party’s objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). Any such response should be concise, and should address specifically, and in the same order raised, each issue presented in the objections.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on July 31, 2025.

s/Eddrey O. Butts EDDREY O. BUTTS Case Manager