Emilie Dean Bentley v. Sheila Srivastava; Chris Harding; Ryan Sullivan; and Sammy Batarseh

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

EMILIE DEAN BENTLEY, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION v.

SHEILA SRIVASTAVA; CHRIS Case No. 2:25-cv-00927-JNP-DPB HARDING; RYAN SULLIVAN; and SAMMY BATARSEH, Chief District Judge Jill N. Parrish

Defendants.

Plaintiff Emilie Dean Bentley filed a complaint against Defendants Sheila Srivastava, Chris Harding, Ryan Sullivan, and Sammy Batarseh. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff later moved for a preliminary injunction. ECF No. 29. Magistrate Judge Pead recommended dismissing Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. ECF No. 44. For the following reasons, the court ADOPTS his Report and Recommendation and DENIES the motion for preliminary injunction. BACKGROUND On October 17, 2025, Plaintiff filed her original complaint against Defendants. ECF No. 1. On November 17, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Equity. ECF No. 29. As stated in Judge Pead’s Report and Recommendation, “Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, ‘restraining’ Defendants from issuing any tax related notices, bills, penalties or liens ‘under any fictitious, incorrect, or mis-styled name.’” ECF No. 44 at 1. Judge Pead recommended the court deny the motion for preliminary injunction because Plaintiff failed to establish the elements for a preliminary injunction. Specifically, Plaintiff was unable to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits because she failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction or to state a plausible claim for relief. Plaintiff also failed to show any irreparable harm or injury. DISCUSSION Because Plaintiff did not object to the Report and Recommendation, she has waived any argument challenging its recommendations. Paciorek v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, No. 2:23-cv-00904, 2024 WL 2818881, at *1 (D. Utah June 3, 2024); Thompson v. Sirmons, 336 F. App’x 834, 836 (10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished) (“When a plaintiff does not make specific objections to the magistrate judge’s report, he is considered to have waived those objections.”’). And nothing indicates that the interests of Justice demand excusing waiver here. See Paciorek, No. 2:23-cv-00904, 2024 WL 2818881, at *1. Nevertheless, even if the court reviewed for clear error, the court concludes that Judge Pead’s analysis is not clearly erroneous. See Zloza v. Indus. Co., No. 4:23-cv-17, 2023 WL 2760784, at *1 (D. Utah Apr. 3, 2023). CONCLUSION AND ORDER IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED, ECF No. 44, and the motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED, ECF No. 29.

Signed August 17, 2026. BY THE COURT .

United States Chief District Judge