Asisa Bass v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ASISA BASS, Plaintiff, Case No. 25-11405 v. Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant. __________________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S OCTOBER 15, 2025, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [14] This consumer credit lawsuit was filed by Plaintiff Asisa Bass against Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (ECF No. 1.) The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford for all pre-trial matters. (ECF No. 8.) Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation to sua sponte dismiss this case. (ECF No. 14.) Finding that Plaintiff had not properly served Defendant or sought entry of default, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to timely serve or under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 12.) The order to show cause explained that Plaintiff had provided no evidence that she served a copy of the complaint on Defendant’s officer, resident agent, or other authorized agent in accordance with applicable rules governing service of process. (Id.) Plaintiff responded, asserting that a medical condition prevented her from seeking an entry of default. (ECF No. 13.) But Plaintiff did not address her failure to properly serve Defendant or express any intent to cure the service defect. (See id.) The Magistrate Judge accordingly recommended that Defendant’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). (ECF No. 14.)

Although the report and recommendation explicitly stated that Plaintiff may object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of the report, no objections were filed during that time period.1 “[T]he failure to object to the magistrate judge's report[ ] releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter.” Hall v. Rawal, 2012 WL 3639070, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2012) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)). The Court nonetheless agrees with the findings of the magistrate judge. The Court therefore ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

SO ORDERED. s/Nancy G. Edmunds Nancy G. Edmunds United States District Judge Dated: November 6, 2025

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on November 6, 2025, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marlena Williams Case Manager

1 Within the 14-day window for objections, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Change [of] Address,” requesting leave to serve a copy of the complaint at the alleged address of Defendant’s registered agent. (ECF No. 15.) The Court does not construe this as an objection to the report and recommendation. But even if it did, the Court would overrule such an objection for the same reasons that the Magistrate Judge denied the motion. (See ECF No. 16.)