Opinion
Civil Action 4:21-cv-04221
08-11-2022
JADA MONAE RHODES, Plaintiff. v. STERLING MCCALL NISSAN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
GEORGEC.HANKS,JR.UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On June 14, 2022, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 18) was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Andrew M. Edison under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Dkt. 21. Judge Edison filed a Memorandum and Recommendation on July 27, 2022, recommending the motion be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. See Dkt. 29.
On August 10, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Response to Defendant's Reply for Motion to Dismiss. See Dkt. 30. Because this document was filed after Judge Edison issued a Memorandum and Recommendation in this matter, I will consider Plaintiff's latest pleading as timely filed objections to Judge Edison's Memorandum and Recommendation. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge's] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection [has been] made.” After conducting this de novo review, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.; see also FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). 1
The Court has carefully considered the objections, the Memorandum and
Recommendation, the pleadings, and the record. The Court ACCEPTS Judge Edison's Memorandum and Recommendation and ADOPTS it as the opinion of the Court. It is therefore ORDERED that:
(1) Judge Edison's Memorandum and Recommendation (Dkt. 29) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED in its entirety as the holding of the Court; and
(2) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 18) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's Fair Credit Reporting Act claim; the claims brought under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and 1951; the claim brought under 12 U.S.C. § 83; and the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) claim to the extent that Plaintiff seeks recission of the vehicle transaction. However, the motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff's TILA claim to the extent Plaintiff claims that Defendants failed to disclose certain terms and conditions of the transaction.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 2