Taylor v. McCowan

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
WAYNE TAYLOR, III, 	Case No. 1:25-cv-01231
Plaintiff, 	Hon. Jane M. Beckering
U.S. District Judge
v.
KELLIE HUGHES MCCOWAN,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. Introduction
Pro se Plaintiff Wayne Taylor, a resident of California, filed this defamation
lawsuit against Defendant Kellie Hughes McCowan, a resident of Michigan. 	(ECF
No. 1.) 	Taylor invokes this Court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Taylor requests $75,001.00 in compensatory damages and more than $75,001.00 in
punitive damages.
Plaintiff says that “around 5/15/24” Defendant, in the presence of others, stated
false and defamatory words by speaking about Plaintiff and asserting words that
“Plaintiff is a manipulative, oppressive, and abusive person towards Defendant and
Plaintiff’s family members.” 	(Id., PageID.4.) 	Plaintiff asserts three claims under
Michigan law: (1) slander per se, (2) invasion of privacy, and (3) intentional infliction
of emotional distress.
On October 15, 2025, Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status. (ECF No.
5.)
Case 1:25-cv-01231-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/28/25 Page 1
of 5

2
II. Standard of Law
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss any action brought in
forma pauperis if the action is (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.
A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it fails “to give the
defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations,
a plaintiff’s allegations must include more than labels and conclusions. Id. The court
must determine whether the complaint contains “enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 	Although the plausibility standard is not equivalent to a
“probability requirement, . . . it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
In addition, the Court must read Plaintiff’s pro se complaint indulgently, see
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept Plaintiff’s allegations as true,
unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
25, 33 (1992).
Case 1:25-cv-01231-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/28/25 Page 2
of 5

3
III. 	Analysis
Plaintiff asserts that on May 15, 2024, Defendant made a statement that he
was manipulative, oppressive, and abusive.
In Michigan, slander is oral defamation. Brode v. Bosquette & Co., Inc.,
Case No. 09-14212, 2011 WL 3648263, at *6 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 18, 2011).
To state a claim for defamation under Michigan law, a plaintiff must
plead “(1) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff, (2)
an unprivileged publication to a third party, (3) fault, amounting to at
least negligence on the part of the publisher, and (4) either actionability
of the statement irrespective of special harm or the existence of special
harm caused by the publication.” Cole v. Knoll, Inc., 984 F. Supp. 1117,
1134 (W.D. Mich. 1997).
Satgunam v. Kiley, No. 1:19-CV-886, 2020 WL 13546501, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 12,
2020). 	Slander per se exists where the words spoken are false and malicious and are
injurious to a person in his or her profession or employment. 	Croton v. Gillis, 104
Mich. App. 104, 108-109, 304 N.W.2d 820 (1981).
In Michigan the statute of limitations is one year for a slander claim. 	M.C.L.
§ 600.5805(11). 	A slander claim accrues when the publication occurs, not when the
plaintiff discovers it. Winkler v. Federal-Mogul Corp., No. 1:09-cv-745, 2010 WL
11688595, at *9 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 18, 2010). Plaintiff filed his complaint on October
10, 2025, which is outside the one-year statute of limitations period. In the opinion
of the undersigned, Plaintiff’s slander claim is barred.
Plaintiff’s invasion of privacy claim requires allegations that could establish
(1) publicity and (2) placement of the plaintiff in false light in the public eye.
Satgunam, at *2 (concluding that information published to only a limited number of
people is insufficient). 	The failure to establish the publicity element requires
Case 1:25-cv-01231-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/28/25 Page 3
of 5

4
dismissal of the claim. Id. 	A Plaintiff must establish that the publication was made
“to the public in general, or to a large number of people.” Derderian v. Genesys Health
Care Sys., 263 Mich. App. 364, 387, 689 N.W.2d 145, 160 (2004). 	For example, one
letter to a limited audience is insufficient publication. 	Sawabini v. Desenberg, 143
Mich. App. 373, 380, 372 N.W.2d 559, 564 (1985).
In the opinion of the undersigned, Plaintiff has not alleged facts establishing
sufficient publication to support his invasion of privacy claim. Plaintiff alleges only
that an oral statement was made in one named person’s presence and in the presence
of other unknown people. Plaintiff’s complaint is insufficient to support an invasion
of privacy claim.
Plaintiff asserts an intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action.
Under Michigan law, a Plaintiff must allege each element of an intentional infliction
of emotional distress claim. To state an intentional infliction of emotional distress, a
plaintiff must assert allegations that could show (1) that the defendant engaged in
extreme and outrageous conduct, (2) that the conduct was intentional or reckless, (3)
causation, and (4) that plaintiff experienced severe emotional distress. Burton v. City
of Detroit, No. 340592, 2019 WL 1866593, at *4 (Mich. App. Apr. 25, 2019) (citation
omitted). 	“To be considered extreme and outrageous, the conduct must be so
outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds
of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized
community.” 	Id. (citation omitted) 	“However, liability does not extend to mere
insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.”
Case 1:25-cv-01231-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/28/25 Page 4
of 5

5
Linebaugh v. Sheraton Michigan Corp., 198 Mich. App. 335, 342, 497 N.W.2d 585,
588 (1993). 	Here, Plaintiff has alleged nothing more than an isolated statement
made by Defendant that insulted him. 	Under these facts, Plaintiff’s complaint
necessarily fails as frivolous. 	In the opinion of the undersigned, Plaintiff has failed
to allege facts which could state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
IV. Recommendation
The 	undersigned 	respectfully 	recommends 	that 	the 	Court 	dismiss 	the
complaint because his defamation claim is barred by the statute of limitations period,
and his claims are frivolous and fail to state claims upon which relief may be granted.
Dated: 	October 28, 2025 	/s/ `ttÜàxÇ ixÜÅttà
MAARTEN VERMAAT
U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO PARTIES
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed and served within
fourteen days of service of this notice on you. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b). All objections and responses to objections are governed by W.D. Mich. LCivR
72.3(b). Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of any further right
of appeal. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981); see Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Case 1:25-cv-01231-JMB-MV ECF No. 7, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/28/25 Page 5
of 5