Donald Benaine and Sandra Benaine v. Fay Servicing, LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1:26-cv-20441-LEIBOWITZ/HERNANDEZ

DONALD BENAINE and SANDRA BENAINE,

Plaintiffs, v. FAY SERVICING, LLC,

Defendant. __________________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Yeney Hernandez [ECF No. 17] (the “R&R”), issued on June 18, 2026. Judge Hernandez recommends denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No 8]. [ECF No. 17 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). No objections were filed during the 14-day objection period. After reviewing the R&R for clear error, the Court finds not only no clear error but also notes that Judge Hernandez’s R&R is thorough, cogent, and compelling. The Court approves Judge Hernandez’s careful consideration of the proposed settlement 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. 17] is ADOPTED and made a part of this Order for all purposes. 2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 8] is DENIED. 3. Defendant shall file an Answer to the Complaint no later than July 31, 2026. DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on July 15, 2026.

ee es UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record