FOX v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS INC

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
CLARENCE T. FOX, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:25-cv-146-AW-MAF
EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Clarence T. Fox, Jr., the pro se plaintiff, sued three credit reporting agencies.
After identifying defects in Fox’s initial complaint and amended complaint, the
magistrate judge directed repleading. The second amended complaint (ECF No. 7)
is the operative complaint. Defendants jointly moved to dismiss. ECF No. 25. The
magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation concluding the court should
grant the motion and dismiss the case. ECF No. 28. No party has filed any objection
to the report and recommendation.
After careful consideration, I now adopt the report and recommendation and
incorporate it into this order. I agree that Fox has not plausibly stated any claim. His
vague and conclusory allegations are insufficient.1
1 Because Fox insufficiently alleged other elements, the magistrate judge did
not reach the sufficiency of Fox’s allegations regarding harm. ECF No. 28 at 12.
Case 1:25-cv-00146-AW-MAF Document 29 Filed 04/24/26 Page 1 of 2

2
The motion to dismiss (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED. The clerk will enter a
judgment that says, “This case is dismissed on the merits for failure to state a claim.”
The clerk will then close the file.
SO ORDERED on April 24, 2026.
s/ Allen Winsor
Chief United States District Judge
Defendants had argued Fox had alleged no concrete injury. ECF No. 25 at 7. Even
if this true, a merits dismissal (as opposed to a jurisdictional dismissal) is still
warranted. Harm from misreporting is an element of the cause of action, so the court
“assume[s] the element is satisfied for jurisdictional purposes.” Maron v. Chief Fin.
Officer of Fla., 136 F.4th 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 2025); see also Brownback v. King,
592 U.S. 209, 218 n.8 (2021) (“In cases such as this one where a plaintiff fails to
plausibly allege an element that is both a merit element of a claim and a jurisdictional
element, the district court may dismiss the claim under Rule 12(b)(1) or Rule
12(b)(6). Or both.”).
Case 1:25-cv-00146-AW-MAF Document 29 Filed 04/24/26 Page 2 of 2