UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

MAHMOUD OSSAMA ALILI Case No. 1:24-cv-10

Plaintiff, McFarland, J. Bowman, M.J. v.

EXPERIAN PLC, et al.,

Defendants

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to local practice, this case has been referred to the undersigned for a report and recommendation (“R&R”) on several dispositive motions, including but not limited to Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against Defendant Trans Union LLC and a party-Defendant originally identified as Equifax INC. After filing his motion for a TRO, Plaintiff dismissed all claims against Defendant Trans Union LLC.1 In addition, by separate Order filed herewith, the undersigned has granted Plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint and has set aside the prior entry of default against Equifax INC. Plaintiff’s motion to amend acknowledges the misidentification of Equifax INC and properly identifies the sole remaining Defendant as Equifax Information Services LLC. In light of the referenced Order, the amended complaint that omits Equifax INC,2 and the dismissal of all other Defendants, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT:

1Both Trans Union LLC and the entity originally identified as Experian PLC were dismissed following resolution of all claims through settlement. (See Docs. 18, 19, 31). 2The omission of Equifax INC in the amended complaint is the equivalent of a voluntary dismissal of that entity. 1. Plaintiff’s motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 21) be DENIED AS MOOT; 2. Plaintiff’s two motions for entry of default judgment against Equifax INC. (Docs. 15, 22) be DENIED AS MOOT; and 3. Equifax Inc.’s motion to dismiss the original complaint (Doc. 27) be DENIED

AS MOOT.

_s/Stephanie K. Bowman_____ Stephanie K. Bowman United States Magistrate Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

MAHMOUD OSSAMA ALILI Case No. 1:24-cv-10

Plaintiff, McFarland, J. Bowman, M.J. v.

EXPERIAN PLC, et al.,

Defendants

NOTICE Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to this Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s) of the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within FOURTEEN DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); United States v. Walters,

(6th Cir. 1981).