govinfo:USCOURTS-tnwd-2_25-cv-02336-3

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 
WESTERN DIVISION 
 
 
THOMAS EDWARDS, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
 
 No. 2:25-cv-02336-TLP-tmp 
v. ) 
 ) 
) 
) 
) 
 
JURY DEMAND 
FIRST PREMIER BANK, 
 
Defendant. 
 
 
 
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
 
 
Pro se Plaintiff Thomas Edwards sued here on March 24, 2025, alleging that Defendant 
First Premier Bank violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. (ECF No. 2.) He brings a claim 
under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a) and another under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b). (Id.) 
Under Administrative Order 2013-05, the Court referred this case to Chief Magistrate 
Judge Tu M. Pham to manage all pretrial matters. Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma 
pauperis, Judge Pham screened the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and issued a Report 
and Recommendation (“R&R”) in June 2025. (ECF No. 8.) In the R&R, Judge Pham 
recommended dismissing Plaintiff’s § 1681s-2(a) claim and giving Plaintiff leave to amend his § 
1681s-2(b) claim. (Id.) The Court adopted the R&R and gave Plaintiff thirty days to amend his 
Complaint. (ECF No. 9.) About four months later, Judge Pham issued another R&R 
recommending that the Court dismiss the remaining § 1681s-2(b) claim because Plaintiff failed 
to amend his Complaint. (ECF No. 10.) PageID
<pageID>
2 
 
LEGAL STANDARD 
A magistrate judge may submit to a district court judge proposed findings of fact and 
recommendations for deciding pretrial matters. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)–(B). And “[w]ithin 14 
days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file 
specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 
72(b)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If the parties do not object, the district court reviews 
the R&R for clear error. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee notes. The district court 
“may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the 
magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Judge Pham entered his R&R in April 2026. 
Plaintiff did not object, and the time to do so has now passed. The Court therefore reviews the 
R&R for clear error. 
DISPOSITION AND CONCLUSION 
Having reviewed the record, the Court finds no clear error in Judge Pham’s R&R. The 
Court agrees with Judge Pham that Plaintiff has not timely amended his Complaint to plausibly 
state a § 1681s-2(b) claim. The Court gave Plaintiff time to amend the Complaint, and he failed 
to do so. 
The Court therefore ADOPTS the R&R and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint 
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 
SO ORDERED, this 19th day of May, 2026. 
s/ Thomas L. Parker 
THOMAS L. PARKER 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE PageID
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight