Freites C v. Medina et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 25-cv-20465-BLOOM/Elfenbein
IVAN R. FREITES,
Plaintiff,
v.
MEDINA, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
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 1:25-cv-20465-BB Document 338 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/13/2026 Page 1 of 3

Case No. 25-cv-20465-BLOOM/Elfenbein
2
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.
Plaintiff.v.Medina@proton.me
Eichholzstrasse 2,
63l2-steinhausen, CH
PRO SE
Case 1:25-cv-20465-BB Document 338 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/13/2026 Page 2 of 3

Case No. 25-cv-20465-BLOOM/Elfenbein
3
Jorge Alejandro Rodriguez M.
Eichholzstrasse 2,
63l2-steinhausen, CH
Plaintiff.2.v.Medina@proton.me
PRO SE
Case 1:25-cv-20465-BB Document 338 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/13/2026 Page 3 of 3