Order | Filed: September 22, 2026
| Entered: September 22, 2026
Woldu v. Experian Information Solutions Inc. et al
Consumer Credit | Colorado
Order on Motion to Dismiss Order on Report and Recommendations
ORDER: This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Kathryn A. Starnella's 27 Recommendation. Judge Starnella recommends granting Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss. She further recommends that Plaintiff's claims against CT Corporation Systems be dismissed without prejudice for failure to complete service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). According to Judge Starnella's careful analysis, Plaintiff's allegations are too sparse to state any claims. And she concludes that Plaintiff's exhibits--submitted with his Response--do not establish that any information on his credit report is inaccurate. Consequently, she recommends dismissing Plaintiff's claims against Experian without prejudice. Id. at pp.6-9.
The Recommendation also advises that objections must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. Dkt. 27 at p.13; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on August 17, 2026. Plaintiff filed his objection on August 31, 2026. Dkt. 28 . In his objection, Plaintiff does not challenge Judge Starnella's reasoning or her recommendation that his claims be dismissed without prejudice against both Defendants. Instead, he only asks this Court to adopt the Recommendation without the sentence: "He provided no documentation or other information to support his assertion that he was an identity theft victim." Id. at p.3. He contends that if the Court adopts the recommendation with this sentence, it would definitively establish that Plaintiff did not present Experian with additional information establishing identity theft.
It would not.
Judge Starnella's discussion was based solely on the documents Plaintiff provided to the Court. She did not make any findings regarding Plaintiff's attachments other than the fact that they did not support his claim for relief. Should Plaintiff file a sufficient amended pleading, Plaintiff would still be entitled to engage in discovery and, if necessary, present further evidence to a trier of fact. Thus, Plaintiff's objection is OVERRULED.
Because Plaintiff has not made any other objections to the substance of the Recommendation, the Court may review the magistrate judge's recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. See Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991). In this matter, the Court has reviewed the Recommendation to satisfy itself that there is "no clear error on the face of the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee's note to 1983 amendment. Based on this review, the Court concludes the Recommendation is thorough, well-reasoned, and a correct application of the facts and law.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
The Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS Judge Starnella's Recommendation. IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 13 is GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE against both Defendants. Plaintiff may have to and including October 6, 2026, to file an amended pleading addressing the deficiencies identified in the Recommendation. If he fails to do so by this date, the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and close this case.
SO ORDERED by Judge S. Kato Crews on 9/22/2026.
For all non-e-filer pro se parties, a copy of this document has been sent via U.S. Mail to the mailing address of record.
Text Only Entry (skclc1)