1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JAKE TAYLER JACOBS, §

Plaintiff, §

 §

v. § No. 3:22-cv-00313-K (BT)

§

TRANSUNION LLC, § 

Defendant. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This is a pro se civil action brought by Plaintiff Jake Tayler Jacobs 

filed under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. 

Compl. 1-2 (ECF No. 3). On February 9, 2022, the Court sent Jacobs a Notice 

of Deficiency and Order (ECF No. 4), which ordered him to file a complaint 

in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), pay the filing fee or 

file a proper request to proceed in forma pauperis, and file his complaint on 

the proper form. The Order informed Jacobs that failure to respond and cure 

these deficiencies by March 9, 2022 could result in a recommendation that 

his case be dismissed. Jacobs has failed to respond, and the time for doing 

so has passed. Therefore, the Court should dismiss this case without 

prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Rule 41(b) allows a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to 

prosecute or for failure to comply with the federal rules or any court order. 

Griggs v. S.G.E. Mgmt., L.L.C., 905 F.3d 835, 844 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing

Case 3:22-cv-00313-K-BT Document 5 Filed 03/11/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 25
2

McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988) (per curiam));

accord Nottingham v. Warden, Bill Clements Unit, 837 F.3d 438, 440 (5th 

Cir. 2016) (failure to comply with a court order); Rosin v. Thaler, 450 F. 

App'x 383, 383-84 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (failure to prosecute). “This 

authority [under Rule 41(b)] flows from the court’s inherent power to 

control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending 

cases.” Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 

1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)). 

Here, Jacobs has failed to comply with the Court’s order to file a 

complaint in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), file his 

complaint on the proper form, and pay the filing fee or file a proper request 

to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court cannot screen his claims, and thus, 

this litigation cannot proceed until he cures these deficiencies. Specifically, 

Jacobs’s complaint is very short, just over a page in length, and it lacks 

necessary details. To assert a claim under § 1681i, which addresses a claim 

for a disputed accuracy, Jacobs must set forth facts sufficient to 

demonstrate: (1) he disputed the completeness or accuracy of an item of 

information contained in his consumer credit file held with the Credit 

Reporting Agency (CRA), and he notified the CRA directly of the dispute; (2) 

the CRA did not reinvestigate free of charge and either record the current 

status of the disputed information or delete the item from his file in the 

manner set forth by § 1681i(a)(5) within the statutory period; (3) the CRA's 

Case 3:22-cv-00313-K-BT Document 5 Filed 03/11/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 26
3

noncompliance was either negligent or willful; (4) he suffered injury; and (5) 

his injury was caused by the CRA's failure to reinvestigate and record the 

current status of the disputed information or delete the item from the file. 

Hammer v. Equifax Info. Servs, LLC, 2019 WL 7602463, at *2 (N.D. Tex. 

Jan. 16, 2019) (citations omitted). Jacobs’s complaint lacks sufficient detail. 

For example, he summarily alleges that he is a “consumer,” and in 2021, he 

sent a “written dispute” to defendant. Compl. 1 (ECF No. 3). Jacobs further 

alleges that he disputed the completeness and/or accuracy of a “tradeline” 

by BMW Financial Services. Id. He claims that defendant failed to follow 

“reasonable procedures” to assure “maximum accuracy of the date in 

consumer reports” and respond to him within thirty days of receipt of his 

dispute. Id. Without explanation, Jacobs claims to have suffered personal 

and financial damages, including punitive damages. As relief, he seeks 

$45,000 “plus “$5,0000 to date,” and all costs associated with this lawsuit. 

Id. 2. In sum, Jacobs has failed to prosecute his lawsuit and also failed to 

obey a court order. Dismissal without prejudice is warranted under these 

circumstances. 

The Court should dismiss Jacobs’s case without prejudice under Rule 

41(b). 

SO RECOMMENDED.

Case 3:22-cv-00313-K-BT Document 5 Filed 03/11/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 27
4

Signed March 11, 2022. 

____________________________

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all 

parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of 

this report and recommendation must file specific written objections within 

14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV.

P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific 

finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for 

the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge's report and 

recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection 

that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the 

magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will 

bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal 

conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the 

district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United 

Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).

Case 3:22-cv-00313-K-BT Document 5 Filed 03/11/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 28