Prosomnus Sleep Technologies, Inc. v. Penn et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 0:25-cv-60110-LEIBOWITZ/AUGUSTIN-BIRCH
PROSOMNUS SLEEP TECHNOLOGIES,
INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
NYREE PENN,
et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________/
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Panayotta Augustin-
Birch’s Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Default Judgment [ECF No. 35].
[ECF No. 41 (the “R&R”)]. 	Judge Augustin-Birch recommends the Motion for Final Default
Judgment [ECF No. 35] be granted in part and denied in part. [ECF No. 41 at 15]. Judge Augustin-
Birch recommends that a final default judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants
Nyree Penn, Prosomnia Sleep, LLC, Prosomnia Sleep Health & Wellness of Aventura, LLC, and
Prosomnia Sleep Management LLC (collectively, “Defendants”). 	[Id.]. 	Judge Augustin-Birch also
recommends entry of a permanent injunction and an award of $100,000 of statutory damages per
Defendant. [Id.]. No objections were filed to the R&R. After careful review, the Court adopts Judge
Augustin-Birch’s R&R in its entirety.
“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party must
file written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and
recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc.,
208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). The objections must also present “supporting
legal authority.” S.D. Fla. L. Mag. J.R. 4(b). Once a district court receives “objections meeting the
Case 0:25-cv-60110-DSL Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2026 Page 1 of 3

2
specificity requirement set out above,” it must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the
report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 783–84 (cleaned up). To
the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, those portions are reviewed
for clear error. Id. at 784 (cleaned up).
The parties have not submitted any objections to Judge Augustin-Birch’s R&R, and the time
to do so has expired. As such, the Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error only. Upon this review,
the Court finds not only no clear error but also notes that Judge Augustin-Birch’s R&R is thorough,
cogent, and compelling. The Court adopts the R&R in its entirety.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. 	Magistrate 	Judge 	Augustin-Birch’s 	R&R 	[ECF 	No. 	41] 	is 	AFFIRMED 	AND
ADOPTED.
2. 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Default Judgment [ECF No. 35] is GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART. The Court will issue a Final Default Judgment in accordance
with Rule 58.
3. 	Defendants, their officers, directors, employees, agents, servants, attorneys, and all persons
in active concert or participation with Defendants are permanently enjoined from
distributing, promoting, selling, or offering for sale any of their goods or services, including
their Infringing Goods and Services in connection with sleep therapy assessments, clinical
sleep treatments, sleep apnea treatments, sleep-aid supplements and prescriptions, sleep
therapy retreats and workshops for the general public and continuing educational courses
for healthcare professionals.
4. 	Plaintiff is awarded $100,000 per Defendant in statutory damages.
Case 0:25-cv-60110-DSL Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2026 Page 2 of 3

3
5. 	The
Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. All deadlines are TERMINATED, and any
pending motions are DENIED as moot.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on February 9, 2026.
cc: 	counsel of record
Nyree Penn, pro se
Prosomnia Sleep, LLC, pro se
Prosomnia Sleep Health & Wellness of Aventura, LLC, pro se
Prosomnia Sleep Management, LLC, pro se
Case 0:25-cv-60110-DSL Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2026 Page 3 of 3