IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION

Lashunda Davis, ) Case No. 0:25-cv-00616-JDA-WSB ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) OPINION AND ORDER ) Founders Federal Credit Union, ) ) Defendant. )

This matter is before the Court on a motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Founders Federal Credit Union. [Doc. 16.] In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge William S. Brown for pre-trial proceedings. On September 24, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that Defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. [Doc. 38.] Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted as to Plaintiff’s sixth claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(2)–(3) and Plaintiff’s prayers for the Court to vacate the Spartanburg County Magistrate Court’s judgment and issue debt waivers. [Id. at 16–19.] Moreover, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendant’s motion to dismiss be denied as to Plaintiff’s first through fifth claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(A)–(E). [Id. at 6–16, 19.] The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if they failed to do so. [Id. at 20.] Neither party has filed objections and the time to do so has lapsed. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. See Mathews v. Weber,

, 270–71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the

Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See

(b). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The Court has reviewed the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report

of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Having done so, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates it by reference. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss [Doc. 16] is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s sixth claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(2)–(3) and Plaintiff's prayers for the Court to vacate the Spartanburg County Magistrate Court's judgment and issue debt waivers and DENIED as to Plaintiff’s first through fifth claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(A)–(E). IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin United States District Judge October 25, 2025 Columbia, South Carolina NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.