United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division
TERRENCE W. BOYLE CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on defendant's motion to
dismiss. [DE 5]. The motion has been fully briefed and is
ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow,
defendant's motion to dismiss [DE 5] is GRANTED.
January 2019, plaintiff filed a pro se complaint in
state court in Wake County, North Carolina. [DE 1-1]. The
complaint, in its entirety, alleges as follows:
Nature of this complaint is towards (i) Professional
Negligence and (ii) Violation of FCRA (fair credit reporting
act). Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act 611 (a)(1) Equifax,
Inc. continuously without merit have reported inaccurate
information AFTER numerous disputes via direct certified
mail, Better Business Bureau portal, CFPB portal, and NC
Attorney General dept. This has resulted in damages.
1-1, p. 1]. Plaintiff requests $10, 000.00 in damages.
Id. Plaintiff appears to allege that defendant
deliberately reported his credit history inaccurately even
after he had "provided proof of inaccuracy." [DE
11, p. 7-8]. In March 2019, defendant timely removed the
action to this Court. [DE 1]. Defendant then moved to dismiss
the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
[DE 5]. Plaintiff has responded in opposition. [DE 11].
has moved to dismiss plaintiffs complaint for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule
12(b)(6). When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6), "the court should accept as true all
well-pleaded allegations and should view the complaint in a
light most favorable to the plaintiff." Mylan Labs.,
Inc. v. Matkari, 1130');">7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993). A
complaint must state a claim for relief that is facially
plausible. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged," as merely reciting the
elements of a cause of action with the support of conclusory
statements does not suffice. Igbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
The Court need not accept the plaintiffs legal conclusions
drawn from the facts, nor need it accept unwarranted
inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments.
Philips v. Pitt County Mem. Hosp., 176');">572 F.3d 176, 180
(4th Cir. 2009). Although a pro se litigant is not
held to the same strict pleading requirements as attorneys,
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106-07 (1976),
"apro se complaint must still contain
sufficient facts 'to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level' and 'state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.'" Cosner v. Dodt,
526 Fed.Appx. 252, 253 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 570).
complaint must be dismissed. Even viewing the complaint in
the light most favorable to plaintiff, it is indisputable
that the complaint contains only cursory allegations of
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) without
supporting factual content. Plaintiffs efforts at adding
additional detail in his response in opposition to
defendant's motion is unavailing. Plaintiff appears to
allege violations of § 623 and § 611 of the FCRA,
codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2 and § 16811,
respectively. But § 1681s-2 applies to furnishers of
information to credit reporting agencies (like defendant),
and not to credit reporting agencies themselves. 15 U.S.C.
§ 1681s-2; see also Saunders v. Branch Banking &
Tr. Co. of Va., 142');">526 F.3d 142, 148 n.3 (4th Cir. 2008)
("A CRA can best fulfill its obligation to report
accurately under § 1681e if it receives accurate
information from a furnisher under § 1681s-2.").
Defendant is not a furnisher, and plaintiff has not alleged
that defendant is a furnisher, so § 1681s-2 is
inapplicable. To state a claim for a violation of § 1681
i, on the other hand, a plaintiff "must first show that
his credit file contains r inaccurate or incomplete
information." Hinton v. Trans Union, LLC, 654
F.Supp.2d 440, 451 (E.D. Va. 2009) (internal quotations
omitted). But even accepting all of plaintiff s allegations
as true, there is no factual support-either in plaintiffs
complaint or in his response in opposition to defendant's
motion to dismiss-for the allegation that plaintiffs credit
file contains inaccurate information. There is simply no
factual support in the complaint on which the Court could
evaluate the merits of plaintiff s claims. Plaintiff has
failed to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim
for relief. As such, defendant's motion to dismiss is
granted, and plaintiffs complaint is dismissed.
above reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss [DE 5] is
GRANTED. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED. The ...