IVAN R. FREITES
v.
MEDINA, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying the plaintiffs' motions.
[1] A district court must conduct a de novo review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation when timely objections are filed.
[2] A district court may adopt a magistrate judge's report and recommendation if it finds the report to be well-reasoned and correct, even without timely objections.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Upon review, the Court finds Judge Elfenbein's Report and Recommendation to be well reasoned and correct. The Court therefore agrees with the analysis and concludes that Plaintiffs' Motions are due to be denied.”
Establishes the court's adoption of the magistrate judge's recommendation and denial of plaintiffs' motions for relief from final judgment and injunctive relief.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs filed motions for an evidentiary hearing, relief from judgment, and a preliminary injunction. The magistrate judge recommended denying thes…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1) cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs Ivan R. Freites, Miguel E. Otero, and Jorge Alejandro Rodriguez's (“Plaintiffs”) pro se Expedited Motion for Evidentiary Hearing and Relief from Final Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2)–(3) (“Rule 60(b) Motion”), ECF No. [218], and Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief to Enjoin Improper Coordination Between Defense Counsel (“Motion for Injunction”), ECF No. [269] (collectively, the "Motions"). The Court referred the Motions to Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein for a Report and Recommendations. See ECF No. [226]; ECF No. [271]. Judge Elfenbein issued her Report and Recommendation on December 24, 2025, recommending that the Motions be denied. See ECF No. [307].
The Report and Recommendation further advised the parties they have “fourteen (14) days from the date of being served with a copy of th[e] Report and Recommendation within which to file written objections, if any, with [this Court].” Id. To date, the parties have not filed objections, nor have they sought additional time to file objections. Nonetheless, the Court has conducted a de novo review of Judge Elfenbein's Report and Recommendation and the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F. 3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing
Case No. 25-cv-20465-BLOOM/Elfenbein
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Upon review, the Court finds Judge Elfenbein's Report and Recommendation to be well reasoned and correct. The Court therefore agrees with the analysis and concludes that Plaintiffs' Motions are due to be denied.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. [307], is ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiffs' Rule 60(b) Motion, ECF No. [218], is DENIED. 3. Plaintiffs' Motion for Injunction, ECF No. [269], is DENIED. 4. Defendants' requests for the sanction of a pre-filing injunction against Plaintiffs contained in their Responses to Plaintiffs' Motions, see ECF No. [221] at 13–15; ECF No. [222]; ECF No. [272] at 12–14; and ECF No. [274], are DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, on January 12, 2026.
BETH BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of record
Ivan R. Freites C. c/o Villasana 4370 NW 107th Ave, Apt. 102 Doral, FL 33178 PRO SE
Miguel Enrique Otero C.
[email protected] Eichholzstrasse 2, 6312-steinhausen, CH PRO SE
2
Case No. 25-cv-20465-BLOOM/Elfenbein
Jorge Alejandro Rodriguez M.
Eichholzstrasse 2, 6312-steinhausen, CH [email protected] PRO SE
3