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 upon the Report and Recommendation by United States
Magistrate Judge Panayotta Augustin-Birch [ECF No. 47] (the “R&R”), filed on August 18, 2026.
Judge Augustin-Birch recommends granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s Verified Motion for
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 45]. [ECF No. 47 at 8].
“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
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).
Case 0:25-cv-60110-DSL Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2026 Page 1 of 2

2
No objections were filed during the 14-day objection period. 	After reviewing the R&R for
clear error, the Court finds no clear error. 	The Court approves Judge Augustin-Birch’s careful
consideration of the Motion and adopts the R&R in its entirety.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. 	The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 47] is APPROVED
and ADOPTED and made a part of this Order for all purposes.
2. 	The Motion [ECF No. 45] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Plaintiff is awarded $81,378 in attorney’s fees and $1,905.20 in costs, against
Defendants, jointly and severally.
3. 	This case remains CLOSED.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on August 18, 2026.
cc: 	counsel of record
Case 0:25-cv-60110-DSL Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2026 Page 2 of 2