Opinion
Civil Action 3:21-cv-01300
08-01-2022
NEEMA MUSHI, Plaintiff, v. LJ ROSS ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant.
MANNION, J.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This civil action was initiated on June 21, 2021, by the filing of a pro se civil complaint in a Pennsylvania state magisterial district court. (Doc. 1-2.) It was timely removed to this federal district court by the defendant on July 23, 2021. (Doc. 1.) The defendant, a debt collection agency, removed the case on the ground that the pro se plaintiffs claim arises under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §1681 et seq., a federal statute. (See id.)
On the defendant s motion, the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim on July 8, 2022. (Doc. 15; see also Doc. 14.) The dismissal order granted Mushi leave to file an amended complaint on or before July 29, 2022. (Doc. 15.)
Mushi has failed to timely file an amended complaint, nor has the Court received any other submissions from Mushi since the dismissal order was entered. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our previous report and recommendation (Doc. 14), it is recommended that:
1. All of the plaintiffs claims be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and
2. The Clerk be directed to CLOSE this case.
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned has entered the foregoing Report and Recommendation dated August 1. 2022. Any party may obtain a review of the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Local Rule 72.3, which provides:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
Failure to file timely objections to the foregoing Report and Recommendation may constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.