Gregory R. Miller v. Safe Home Security, Inc.; Security Systems, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Utah
• Decided: March 16, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00172
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

GREGORY R. MILLER, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION v.

SAFE HOME SECURITY, INC.; and Case No. 2:25-cv-00172-JNP-JCB SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., Chief District Judge Jill N. Parrish Defendants.

Plaintiff Gregory R. Miller filed a complaint against Defendants Safe Home Security, Inc. and Security Systems, Inc. After Mr. Miller filed an amended complaint, Magistrate Judge Bennett recommended dismissing the amended complaint without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) as a prolix, group pleading. For the following reasons, the court ADOPTS his Report and Recommendation and DISMISSES the complaint without prejudice. BACKGROUND On March 6, 2025, Mr. Miller filed his original complaint against Defendants. ECF No. 1. On April 15, 2025, Mr. Miller filed an amended complaint. ECF No. 14. As stated in Judge Bennett’s Report and Recommendation, “[t]he amended complaint painstakingly details [Mr. Miller’s] labyrinthine journey from first acquiring Jack Elbaum (“Mr. Elbaum”) as an enemy, followed by Mr. Elbaum’s Utah companies, to finally adding Defendants Safe Home Security, Inc. (“SHSI”) and Security Systems, Inc. (“SSI”), which are Connecticut companies with which Mr. Elbaum is allegedly affiliated.” ECF No. 23 at 1–2. Defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss on April 25, 2025. ECF No. 17. Judge Bennett’s Report and Recommendation recommended the court dismiss the complaint without prejudice. Specifically, he found that the complaint (1) was not a short and plain

statement showing that Mr. Miller was entitled to relief and (2) was not simple, concise, and direct. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Judge Bennett, considering Mr. Miller’s pro se status, recommended that Mr. Miller be allowed to amend his complaint. Accordingly, Judge Bennett also recommended denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot. DISCUSSION Because Mr. Miller did not object to the Report and Recommendation, he 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2024 WL 2818881, at *1 (D. Utah June 3, 2024); Thompson v. Sirmons, 336 F. App’x 834, 836 (10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished) (“When a plaintiff does not make specific objections to the magistrate judge’s report, he is considered to have waived those objections.”).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 Bennett’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. 23, and the amended complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Further, because the amended complaint is now dismissed and Mr. Miller has filed

2 a second amended complaint, the court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot. ECF No. 17.

Signed March 16, 2026. BY THE COURT

Jill N. Parrish United States Chief District Judge