Harrell v. Equifax Information Services, LLC

Docket 1:25-cv-01155

Filed
2025-06-24
Terminated
Not recorded
Case type
cv

Outcome

settled

FJC civil IDB DISTRICT=51 OFFICE=1 DOCKET=2501155 FILEDATE=06/24/2025 DISP=13, PROCPROG=10, JUDGMENT=0; codebook: https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/idb/codebooks/Civil%20Codebook%201988%20Forward%2010252023.pdf

Outcome source

Parties and representation

      Party and firm records are not available for this case.

      Panel

        No sourced panel votes are recorded.

        Opinions and documents

        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE EASTERN DIVISION ______________________________________________________________________________ RODNEY HARRELL, Plaintiff, v. No. 1:25-cv-01155-JDB-jay EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC; EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; and CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA) N.A., Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court are the motion of Plaintiff, Rodney Harrell, proceeding pro se, for summary judgment, (Docket Entry (“D.E.”) 9), and the motion of Defendant, Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”), to deny or defer ruling on the motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). (D.E. 10.) By Administrative Order, this matter was referred to the United States magistrate judge for management of all pretrial matters and for determination and/or report and recommendation. Admin. Order 2013-05. After reviewing the motions, Magistrate Judge Jon A. York recommended that Experian’s motion be granted and Plaintiff’s motion be denied without prejudice. (D.E. 11 at PageID 64.) At the end of the Report and Recommendation, Judge York notified the parties that, if they disagreed with the recommendation, they were required to file an objection within fourteen days. (Id.) He added that “failure to file objections within fourteen (14) days may constitute a waiver and/or forfeiture of objections, exceptions, and further appeal.” (Id. (emphasis omitted)). No party has objected to the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation, and the time for doing so has expired. Consequently, each party has forfeited their objections to the report and recommendation. See Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019) (quoting Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 176 (6th Cir. 1996)). Accordingly, upon review of the record, the report and recommendation (D.E. 11) is ADOPTED, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (D.E. 9) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and Experian’s motion to deny the motion for summary judgment (D.E. 10) is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of November 2025. s/ J. DANIEL BREEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

        Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.