Ivan R. Freites 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 No. 25-cv-20465-BLOOM/Elfenbein US.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.

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-sternhausen, CH PRO SE Jorge Alejandro Rodriguez M.

Eichholzstrasse 2, 63l2-steinhausen, CH [email protected] PRO SE