Almenares v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company

Aug 5, 2026
1:26-cv-23409

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On May 15, 2026, the Plaintiffs filed a Sealed Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (the “Motion“) [ECF No. 5]. On July 15, 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Yeney Hernandez issued a Sealed Report and Recommendation (the “R&R“) [ECF No. 17], explaining that the Plaintiffs failed to establish a need to proceed ex parte, a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, or irreparable harm. The R&R thus recommended that we deny the Motion.

Under Local Magistrate Rule 4(b), parties have fourteen days from the date of being served with a copy of a Report and Recommendation within which to file written objections with the relevant United States District Judge. See also FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). Here, the fourteen-day deadline for filing objections has passed, and no objection has been filed. See generally Docket. When a magistrate judge‘s Report and Recommendation has been properly objected to, district courts must review that disposition de novo. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). But, when no party has timely objected, “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 that Congress‘s intent was to require de novo review only where objections have been properly filed—and not, as here, when no 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).

Having reviewed the R&R, the record, and the applicable law—and finding no clear error on the face of the R&R—we hereby ORDER and ADJUDGE as follows:

  1. The Sealed Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 17] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.
  2. The Sealed Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 5] is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on August 4, 2026.

ROY K. ALTMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record
Mari Luz Almernares and Yunel Escobar, pro se