Juandel Pena and Martina Ruiz v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 25-62431-CIV-DAMIAN/AUGUSTIN-BIRCH

JUANDEL PENA and MARTINA RUIZ, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant. _________________________________/ ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 37] ON PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [ECF NO. 14] THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Panayotta Augustin-Birch’s Report and Recommendation on Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“Report”) [ECF No. 37], entered on February 19, 2026.

THE COURT has considered the Report, the pertinent portions of the record, and relevant authorities and is otherwise fully advised.

Plaintiffs, Juandel Pena and Martina Ruiz, proceeding pro se, filed this action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) against Defendant, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) on November 26, 2025. [ECF No. 1]. On December 5, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“Motion”) now before the Court. [ECF No. 14]. In the Motion, Plaintiffs argue they have suffered harm as the result of Wells Fargo’s inaccurate reporting and request immediate injunctive relief. Id. Wells Fargo filed a Response to the Motion [ECF No. 16], and Plaintiffs filed a Reply [ECF No. 17]. After the Motion was fully briefed and ripe for review, on February 19, 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch entered the Report recommending that the Motion be denied. [ECF No. 37]. No party filed objections to the Report or requested additional time within which to do so, and the deadline for filing objections has passed.

When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has properly been objected to, district courts must review the disposition de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). When no party has timely objected, however, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s notes (citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged Congress’s intent was to only require a de novo review where objections have been properly filed, not when neither party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge]’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”). In any event, the “[f]ailure to object to the magistrate [judge]’s factual findings after notice precludes a later attack on these findings.” Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988) (citing Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 (5th Cir. 1982)).

The undersigned has reviewed the Report, the record, and the applicable law to assure herself that no clear error appears on the face of the record. In light of that review, the undersigned agrees with Judge Augustin-Birch’s well-reasoned findings and thorough analyses and conclusions and agrees with Judge Augustin-Birch’s recommendation that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction be denied.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 37] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE into this Order for all purposes, including appellate review.

2. Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 14] is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 5th day of May, 2026.

MELISSA pede UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: Magistrate Judge Panayotta Augustin-Birch Juandel Pena, Pro se 7170 Custer Street Hollywood, FL 33024 718-938-5417 Martina Ruiz, Pro se Monument Walk 3E Brooklyn, NY 11205 347-743-8966