Thompson v. Bank of America, N.A. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BRYCE THOMPSON,
Plaintiff, 	Civil Action No. 24-13149
v. 	Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.,
David R. Grand
Defendants. 	United States Magistrate Judge
________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY AS MOOT
DEFENDANT CREDIT REPORTING AGENCIES’ JOINT
MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 41)
In this civil action, pro se plaintiff Bryce Thompson (“Thompson”) alleges that
defendants Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”), and three credit reporting agencies –
Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Equifax Information Services, LLC, and Trans
Union, LLC (the “CRAs,” and, with BANA, the “Defendants”) – violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (“FCRA”) related to their handling of an alleged missed credit card payment
by Thompson.1 Pending before the Court is a joint motion to dismiss filed by the CRAs.
(ECF No. 41). The Court held oral argument on the motion on October 30, 2025.
Recently, the Court was advised that Thompson and the CRA defendants have
resolved his claims against them, and that they will soon be submitting stipulated orders of
dismissal as to the CRAs.
1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the case has been referred to the undersigned for all pretrial
purposes. (ECF No. 19).
Case 2:24-cv-13149-NGE-DRG ECF No. 55, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/17/25 Page 1 of 3

2
Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the CRAs’ joint motion to dismiss
(ECF No. 41) be DENIED AS MOOT.
Dated: November 17, 2025 	s/David R. Grand
Ann Arbor, Michigan 	DAVID R. GRAND
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS
The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and
Recommendation, but are required to act within fourteen (14) days of service of a copy
hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	Failure to
file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Secretary of HHS, 932 F.2d 505, 508 (6th Cir.1991);
United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir.1981). 	The filing of objections
which raise some issues, but fail to raise others with specificity, will not preserve all the
objections a party might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Secretary of
HHS, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829
F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). 	Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any
objections is to be served upon this magistrate judge. 	A party may respond to another
party’s objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). Any such response should be concise, and should address
specifically, and in the same order raised, each issue presented in the objections.
Case 2:24-cv-13149-NGE-DRG ECF No. 55, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/17/25 Page 2 of 3

3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email
or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on
November 17, 2025.
s/Eddrey O. Butts
EDDREY O. BUTTS
Case Manager
Case 2:24-cv-13149-NGE-DRG ECF No. 55, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/17/25 Page 3 of 3