Baskins v. Experian Information Solutions, INC ( 2023 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Robert Jerome Baskins; Candace M. Baskins; C/A: 3:22-cv-3471-SAL Robert Joseph Baskins; and Eva Baskins, Plaintiffs, v. ORDER Experian Information Solutions, Inc.; Trans Union, LLC; and Equifax Information Services, LLC, Defendants. Robert Jerome Baskins, Candace M. Baskins, Robert Joseph Baskins, and Eva Baskins, brought this case against Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”), Trans Union LLC (“Trans Union”), and Equifax Information Services, LLC (“Equifax”) (collectively, “Defendants”) pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq. See ECF No. 1. In August 2023, Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss claims by Plaintiffs Robert Jerome Baskins and Candace M. Baskins (“Non-Responding Plaintiffs”) for failure to prosecute. [ECF No. 73.] Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges issued a Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), recommending that the motion be granted. [ECF No. 80.] Attached to the Report was a notice advising all Plaintiffs of their right to file objections and the serious consequences if they failed to do so. Id. at 11. Non-Responding Plaintiffs have not filed objections, and the time to do so has expired. Also pending before the court is a joint motion between Robert Joseph Baskins and Eva Baskins (“Settling Plaintiffs”) and Defendants. [ECF No. 84.] In that motion, Defendants and Settling Plaintiffs ask the court to dismiss with prejudice “each and every claim” brought by the Settling Plaintiffs against Defendants. Id. at 2. As to the Report, 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 this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to, and the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of objections, the court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report and must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). After reviewing the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case in accordance with the above standard, the court finds no clear error, adopts the Report, ECF No. 80, and incorporates the Report by reference herein. As a result, the court GRANTS Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution and for failure to comply with federal rules and court order, ECF No. 73, and the claims by Plaintiffs Robert Jerome Baskins and Candace M. Baskins against Defendants are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The court also GRANTS the joint motion to dismiss all claims of the Settling Parties. [ECF No. 84.] Accordingly, the claims by Plaintiffs Robert Joseph Baskins and Eva Baskins against Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. Shere tk. Lilp— December 4, 2023 Shern A. Lydon Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge