Harden v. Equifax Information Services LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
TYRONE HARDEN, JR,
Plaintiff,
versus
EQUIFAX INFORMATION
SERVICES, LLC, et al,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-03655
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff Tyrone Harden, Jr, proceeds here pro se. He
sues Defendants Equifax Information Services LLC,
Experian Information Solutions, Inc, and CCM Finance,
LLC, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, and Article 9 of the Uniform
Commercial Code. See Dkt 29 at ¶¶14–34 (amended
complaint). The matter was referred for disposition to
Magistrate Judge Dena Hanovice Palermo. See Dkt 22.
Equifax brought a motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim. See Dkt 32. Plaintiff filed motions to strike
Experian’s affirmative defenses and for entry of default
against CCM Finance. See Dkts 48 & 49.
Judge Palermo addressed these motions in three
Reports and Recommendations. See Dkts 62, 64 & 65. The
first recommended that the motion to dismiss be granted
and that all claims against Equifax be dismissed with
prejudice. See Dkt 62 at 12. The second recommended that
the motion to strike Experian’s affirmative defenses be
denied. See Dkt 64 at 6–7. The third recommended that the
motion for entry of default against CCM Finance be denied,
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 01, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-03655 Document 70 Filed 06/01/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2
with Plaintiff further ordered to file proof that he properly
served CCM Finance by June 11, 2026. See Dkt 65 at 8.
The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of
a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically
objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC § 636(b)(1)(C); see
also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir
1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other
portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no
clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v
PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing
Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b)
advisory committee note (1983).
Plaintiff filed objections. See Dkts 63, 66 & 69. On de
novo review and determination, all such objections lack
merit.
As to the first R&R, Plaintiff objects to the conclusion
that he has failed to state plausible claims against Equifax
and, alternatively, requests leave to amend his complaint.
See Dkt 63 at 1–7.
The Magistrate Judge thoroughly and correctly
determined that Plaintiff failed to state claims under
15 USC §1681e(b) because he failed to plausibly allege that
(i) Equifax prepared a credit report for a third party,
(ii) such report contained inaccurate information, (iii) such
inaccuracy was due to failure to follow reasonable
procedures, and (iv) he suffered a specific injury as a result.
See Dkt 62 at 5–8. She also correctly concluded that
Plaintiff’s remaining claims against Equifax under 15 USC
§§1681i, 1681n, and 1681o fail for these same reasons. See
id at 9–12. Plaintiff’s objections fail to point to allegations
within the amended complaint sufficient to correct these
deficiencies.
Plaintiff attempts to include additional allegations by
way of his objections to supplement his complaint. But he
has already had the opportunity to replead his case and
still failed to state plausible claims for relief against
Equifax for the reasons stated above.
Case 4:25-cv-03655 Document 70 Filed 06/01/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3
His further request for leave to amend is thus properly
DENIED as untimely and in contravention of prior order.
As to the second R&R, Plaintiff filed no relevant
objections. No clear error otherwise appears on review of
the R&R. It will thus be adopted and the motion to strike
Experian’s affirmative defenses will be denied.
As to the third R&R, Plaintiff’s objections attempt to
explain prior defects in service and convey intention to
complete proper service of CCM Finance. See Dkts 66 & 69.
Plaintiff has also filed an additional certificate of service
through the Texas Secretary of State. See Dkt 68. But the
R&R correctly noted that service through the Secretary of
State is proper only if an entity fails to maintain a
registered agent, which CCM Finance apparently does. See
Dkt 65 at 6. Plaintiff having not yet properly served CCM
Finance, the motion for entry of default will be denied.
* * *
The objections by Plaintiff Tyrone Harden, Jr, to the
Reports and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge are
OVERRULED. Dkts 63, 66 & 69.
No clear error otherwise appears upon review and
consideration of the Reports and Recommendations, the
record, and the applicable law.
The Reports and Recommendations of the Magistrate
Judge are ADOPTED as the Memorandum and Order of this
Court. Dkts 62, 64 & 65.
The motion by Defendant Equifax Information
Services, LLC, to dismiss is GRANTED. Dkt 32.
The claims against Defendant Equifax Information
Services, LLC, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The motion by Plaintiff Tyrone Harden, Jr, to strike
the affirmative defenses of Defendant Experian
Information Solutions, Inc, is DENIED. Dkt 48.
The motion by Plaintiff Tyrone Harden, Jr, for entry of
default against Defendant CCM Finance, LLC, is DENIED.
Dkt 49.
Case 4:25-cv-03655 Document 70 Filed 06/01/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
SO ORDERED.
Signed on _______________, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
June 01, 2026
Case 4:25-cv-03655 Document 70 Filed 06/01/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4