Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2008

Marty Green v. RBS National Bank

Marty Green v. RBS National Bank
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Decided August 4, 2008 · Tjoflat, Carnes, Barkett
288 F. App'x 641

Counsel

Marty Green, Flintstone, GA, pro Se., Jared Matthew Lina, Arnall Golden Gregory LLP, Hemy R. Chalmers, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Marty Green v. RBS National Bank

Cases that cite this one

28 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Marty Green, proceeding pro se, brought this action against RBS National Bank ("RBS") claiming that RBS violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b), and is seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Green asserts that RBS infringed his rights under the FCRA because it (1) was negligent in its investigation of disputes sent to it by credit reporting agencies ("CRA"), (2) erroneously reported two accounts, instead of one, and failed to rectify the problem after receiving a dispute from a CRA, and (3) furnished inaccurate information to GRAs. After the parties joined issue, RBS moved the district court for summary judgment. The court granted its motion in a comprehensive 40-page order on January 23, 2008. Green now appeals. 1

The FCRA governs claims by consumers, like Green, against a furnisher of information, such as RBS, based on an allegation that the furnisher submitted incorrect information regarding the consumer to GRAs. See generally 15 U.s.c. §~ 1681a(c) & (f), 1681s-2(a). The FCRA imposes two separate duties on furnishers. First, § 1681s-2(a) requires furnishers to submit accurate information to GRAs. Second, § 1681s-2(b) requires furnishers to investigate and respond promptly to notices of customer disputes. Green contends that citizens Bank of Rhode Island ("citizens") violated § 1681s-2(a) by tendering false information regarding his account. The FCRA, however, does not provide a private right of action to redress such a violation, and the district court was correct in so holding. 2

The FCRA does provide a private right of action for a violation of § 1681s-2(b), but only if the furnisher received notice of the consumer's dispute from a consumer reporting agency. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1). Assuming that Green asserted such a claim, the undisputed evi *643 dence is against him. Green initiated oniy three disputes with CRAs, one with Expe-nan and two with Trans Union. Citizens investigated the Experian dispute and accurately reported its findings to Experian the next day. Citizens investigated the Trans Union disputes and accurately reported its findings to Trans Union within no more than eight days. In short, Citizens timely complied with the letter of the law in all three instances.

We have no basis for disturbing the district court's January 23, 2008 order, and therefore affirm the court's judgment.

AFFIRMED.

1

. In addition to arguing that the court erred in granting RBS summary judgment, Green contends that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion for an extension of time for discovery. We find no error, much less an abuse of discretion, in the court's denial of the motion. As the court properly explained in its January 16, 2008 order denying the motion, the motion was untimely.

2

. Enforcement of this provision is limited to federal agencies, federal officials, and state officials. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681s-2(c), (d); 15 U.S.C. § 1681s(c)(1)(B).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.