WILLIAMS v. LEXIS NEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS

Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
DEJUAN WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No. 4:25cv508-MW-MAF
LEXIS NEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS,
Defendants.
___________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This case was removed to this Court in December 2025. ECF No. 1.
Review of Defendant’s notice of removal, ECF No. 1, and Plaintiff’s
complaint, ECF No. 9, revealed that jurisdiction in this Court was
appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ECF No. 8. However, Plaintiff’s
complaint (“Statement of Claim”) was found to be deficient because Plaintiff
did not sign the complaint as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
11(a).
Even so, Defendant had filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint
or, in the alternative, a motion for more definite statement, ECF No. 7, on
December 19, 2025. Defendants’ request for a more definite statement
Case 4:25-cv-00508-MW-MAF Document 10 Filed 02/18/26 Page 1 of 4

Page 2 of 4
was granted. ECF No. 8. Beyond the signature deficiency which, in and of
itself would provide a basis for requiring Plaintiff to file an amended
complaint, Plaintiff’s complaint did not provide the necessary statement of
facts to support Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff did not clarify how his consumer
rights were violated, he did not cited to a specific provision of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA”) that was violated, nor did Plaintiff state when
any of the relevant underlying events transpired. Furthermore, both of
Plaintiff’s FCRA and defamation claims presented conclusory assertions
unsupported by facts. Because Defendant could not meaningfully respond
to the complaint as filed, Plaintiff was required to file an amended
complaint by February 9, 2026. 1 ECF No. 8.
As of this date, the pro se Plaintiff has not filed the amended
complaint as required. Plaintiff also did not request an extension of time in
which to comply. It appears Plaintiff has abandoned this case.
1 Plaintiff’s attention was also directed to a provision of the FCRA which, as
Defendant cited in the prior motion, states that “no consumer may bring any action or
proceeding in the nature of defamation . . . against any consumer reporting agency . . .
except as to false information furnished with malice or willful intent to injure such
consumer.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681h(e) (quoted in ECF No. 7 at 6). Plaintiff was required to
consider whether there was a factual basis to pursue a defamation claim in light of
§ 1681h(e). ECF No. 8.
Case No. 4:25cv508-MW-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00508-MW-MAF Document 10 Filed 02/18/26 Page 2 of 4

Page 3 of 4
Notably, a warning was given to Plaintiff that a recommendation to
dismiss this case would be entered if Plaintiff failed to file the amended
complaint as required. ECF No. 8. Because Plaintiff did not comply, this
case should now be dismissed.
“A district court, as part of its inherent power to manage its own
docket, may dismiss a case sua sponte” when a Plaintiff “fails to prosecute
or” otherwise comply with a court order. 	See Ciosek v. Ashley, No.
3:13cv147-RV-CJK, 2015 WL 2137521, at *2 (N.D. Fla. May 7, 2015). The
Court has inherent power “to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution” as
courts must necessarily have authority “to manage their own affairs . . . . ”
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 1389, 8 L. Ed.
2d 734 (1962) (quoted in Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d
1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005)); see also N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1. Furthermore,
the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has noted that “[w]hile dismissal is an
extraordinary remedy, dismissal upon disregard of an order, especially
where the litigant has been forewarned, generally is not an abuse of
discretion.” Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989). It is
within this Court’s discretion and “inherent authority” to dismiss a case for
failing to comply with a court Order. Smith v. Bruster, 424 F. App’x 912,
Case No. 4:25cv508-MW-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00508-MW-MAF Document 10 Filed 02/18/26 Page 3 of 4

Page 4 of 4
915 (11th Cir. 2011). Here Plaintiff was forewarned and did not respond to
a clear and direct Court Order. ECF No. 8. Dismissal is appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED for
failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a Court Order.
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on February 18, 2026.
S/ 	Martin A. Fitzpatrick
MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific written
objections to these proposed findings and recommendations. 	Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic
docket is for the Court’s internal use only and does not control. 	If a
party 	fails 	to 	object 	to 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s 	findings 	or
recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in this
Report and Recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge on
appeal the District Court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual and
legal conclusions. 	See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case No. 4:25cv508-MW-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00508-MW-MAF Document 10 Filed 02/18/26 Page 4 of 4