manner.” Cortez v. Trans Union, LLC, 617 F.3d 688, 706 (3d Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted). “The FCRA places certain duties on those who furnish information to consumer reporting agencies.” SimmsParris v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 652 F.3d 355, 357 (3d Cir. 2011). For example, furnishers are required to correct any information they later discover to be inaccurate, § 1681s-2(a)(2), and, when an account is placed for collection or charged to profit or loss, furnishers must notify the CRAs of the account’s “date of delinquency,” § 1681s-2(a)(5)(A). Tauro alleges that Capital One failed to comply with both of these provisions. Notably, however, the FCRA prohibits private enforcement of the duties arising under § 1681s-2(a). See Seamans v. Temple Univ., 744 F.3d 853, 864 (3d Cir. 2014) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, the District Court properly
holding that suits under 42 usc  1983 do not override state immunity holding that 15 usc  1125a does not authorize suits by consumers holding that the eleventh amendment protects both states and state officials acting in their official capacity from suits brought pursuant to 42 usc  1983 holding that fcra explicitly precludes private suits for failure to comply with  16812a  15 usc  1681s2c and instead provides for enforcement of that provision by federal and state officials 15 usc  1681s2d holding suits against state officials for prospective injunctive relief are permissible because they are in effect suits against the officials in their individual capacities