Corpus: 543,223 opinions · 3,177 judges · newest 2026-06-23 · expanding Coverage ↗
Opinion

govinfo:USCOURTS-tnmd-3_24-cv-01406-1

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee · 2026-06-16

· GavelSight synced 2026-09-06 03:40:00

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 
NASHVILLE DIVISION 
 
 
CHARLES LYONS, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
HIRERIGHT, LLC, 
 
Defendant. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
 
 

Judge Aleta A. Trauger 
 
 
 
MEMORANDUM 
 Before the court are plaintiff Charles Lyons’ timely Amended Objections (Doc. No. 60 ) 
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 
Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. No. 58) . The R&R recommends that the Motion to Dismiss 
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint Under Rule 12(b)(6) (Doc. No. 46) filed by defendant 
HireRight, LLC (“HireRight”) be granted and that the plaintiff’s claims against HireRight under 
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) be dismissed. HireRight filed a Response in opposition 
to the plaintiff’s Amended Objections. (Doc. No. 63.) 
 Under Rule 72(b)(2), t he district court must review de novo any portion of a report and 
recommendation “that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) . An objection is 
“properly” made if it is sufficiently specific to “enable[] the district judge to focus attention on 
those issues—factual and legal —that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 
U.S. 140, 147 (1985). In conducting its review, the district court “may accept, reject, or modify 
the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge 
with instructions.” Id. PageID #: <pageID>
2 
 
 In the thorough and thoughtful R&R, the Magistrate Judge lays out the procedural and 
factual history of this case, the plaintiff’s claims, and the operative law. He then concludes that the 
plaintiff’s negligence claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a) should be dismissed because (1) the 
plaintiff fails to plausibly allege that the defendant’s consumer reports about him contain an 
inaccuracy; and (2) the plaintiff fails to plausibly allege any adverse employment or credit-related 
harm, or any other harm, arising from the alleged inaccuracy. (Doc. No. 58 at 6–8.) The R&R finds 
that the plaintiff’s claim that HireRight willfully violated § 1681i fails because he does not allege 
facts establishing willfulness or recklessness. ( Id. at 9.) Finally, the R&R recommends that the 
plaintiff’s claim under § 1681s-2 be dismissed because that provision governs the responsibilities 
of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies, and the plaintiff does not allege that 
HireRight furnished information to a consumer reporting agency. Rather, HireRight is the 
consumer reporting agency. (Id. at 10.) 
 The plaintiff’s Amended Objections do not address the recommendation that his claim 
under § 1681s-2 be dismissed. Regarding his claims under § 1681i, he largely reiterates the same 
arguments he raised in response to the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, without raising a specific 
objection to any portion of the R&R or pointing to any specific factual finding or legal conclusion 
that he contends is in error. HireRight’s Response to the Amended Objections argues that, because 
the plaintiff has not identified any specific error in the R&R, his objections are not “proper ly” 
made under Rule 72(b) and therefore do not warrant de novo review. Its position is that the court 
only needs to review the R&R for clear error, find none, and adopt it. (Doc. No. 63 at 1.) 
 The court has reviewed the underlying record in its entirety and, on de novo review, finds 
that the defendant is entitled to dismissal of the FCRA claims against it as alleged in the Second 
Amended Complaint for the reasons set forth in the R&R. PageID #: <pageID>
3 
 
 Accordingly, the court will overrule the plaintiff’s Amended Objections (Doc. No. 60) , 
accept the R&R (Doc. No. 58) in its entirety, grant the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 
46), and dismiss this case with prejudice. All other pending motions will be denied as moot. An 
appropriate Order is filed herewith. 
 
 
ALETA A. TRAUGER 
United States District Judge PageID #: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight