, □□ wateeD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Atte gee. 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 72019 + □□ neneenenen ennem en nenen □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ X DANIELLE WARD, BROOKL yyy Ore,._|| : FICE Plaintiff, : : ORDER □ -against- : : 2:18-cv-2834 (ENV) (RML) GOLD KEY CREDIT, INC., Do □ | i Defendant. : □ seen wee wen □□□ Seen eset enan seseseeene ae ee eee see cores seseseess= x VITALIANO, D.J. Plaintiff Danielle Ward commenced this action on May 11, 2018, against defendant Gold Key Credit, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § □ 1692(e), (g) ““FDCPA”). Dkt. 1. On November 19, 2019, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. 11. After the

case was transferred to this Court on March 25, 2019, the motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy for a Report & Recommendation. See Order Referring Motion, dated : | | Mar. 29, 2019. Judge Levy issued his Report & Recommendation on July 11,2019. Dkt. 13, (“R&R”). The R&R recommends that the motion be granted and that the case be dismissed. | Plaintiff contends that the collection letter at issue violated FDCPA by (1) demanding □ immediate payment without providing “transitional language,” notwithstanding language in the

collection letter about the relevant validation period! and (2) “threaten[ing] to report the consumer to the credit bureaus during the validation period.” Jd. at 2. Applying the “least sophisticated consumer” standard to the collection letter, Judge Levy determined that that letter did not demand immediate payment that would “overshadow” the validation notice, id. at6, and,

! “Under §1692g, a consumer is provided with a thirty-day window to dispute the validity of a debt after receiving a collection letter.” Jd. at 4.

4 1 □□ □

moreover, that defendant had a legal right to “inform [the] consumer that it may report an unpai : account.” /d. at 7. Accordingly, presented with a classic demurrer, Judge Levy concluded, on the facts alleged by plaintiff, that defendant had not violated FDCPA and that Ward’s complaint should be dismissed. !

Notice of time to object to the R&R was given, but no party has objected within the prescribed time to do so. See R&R at 8. Discussion Where no party has objected to a report and recommendation, clear error review applies, See Dafeng Hengwei Textile Co. v. Aceco Indus. & Commercial Corp.,

(E.D.N.Y. 2014). Having carefully reviewed the R&R in accordance with this standard, the | ! | | Court finds it to be correct, well-reasoned and free of any clear error. The Court, therefore, adopts the R&R, in its entirety, as the opinion of the Court. |

Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the R&R is adopted, in its entirety, as the opinion of the Coutt, | Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and to close this case. □ So Ordered. Dated: Brooklyn, New York August 3, 2019

/s/ USDJ ERIC N. VITALIANO 4 ERIC N. VITALIANO United States District Judge | | □□

94