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 – California state prisoner Wayne Taylor – filed this lawsuit
against Defendant Kellie Hughes McCowan, a resident of Michigan. 	(ECF No. 9
(amended complaint).) 	Taylor invokes this Court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1332. 	Taylor alleges that he and Defendant had a relationship and share a
daughter, who is now an adult. (Id., PageID.35-36.)
Plaintiff says that Defendant slandered him in the presence of their adult
daughter on May 15, 2024 (Id., PageID.9.) He also alleges that Defendant breached
an oral contract by failing to find him a mental health therapist, and that she
committed fraud by failing to provide him with a $2,500.00 personal loan with a 50%
interest rate. (Id., PageID.8-9.)
On October 15, 2025, Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status. (ECF No.
5.) On Oct. 28, 2025, the undersigned issued a report and recommendation (R. & R,)
recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed because it was barred by the
Case 1:25-cv-01231-JMB-MV ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/26/25 Page 1
of 5

2
statute of limitations, and because Plaintiff’s claims were frivolous and failed to state
a claim upon with relief may be granted. (ECF No. 7, PageID.25.) On Nov. 20, 2025,
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (ECF No. 9), and U.S. District Judge Beckering
dismissed the aforementioned R. & R., remanding this matter for consideration of the
amended complaint (ECF No. 10).
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).
Case 1:25-cv-01231-JMB-MV ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/26/25 Page 2
of 5

3
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).
III. 	Analysis
Plaintiff 	asserts 	that 	on 	May 	15, 	2024, 	Defendant 	made 	a 	slanderous
statement that was manipulative, oppressive, and abusive. (ECF No. 9, PageID.35.)
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 original 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.
Case 1:25-cv-01231-JMB-MV ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/26/25 Page 3
of 5

4
Plaintiff claims that Defendant breached an oral contract by failing to contact
“a mental health therapist to perform joint Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT)
sessions for Plaintiff.” 	(ECF No. 9, PageID.36.) 	In the opinion of the undersigned,
Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to create a contract. Assuming that Defendant
told Plaintiff that she would contact a therapist and attend the session with Plaintiff,
she has the right to change her mind. 	In such a case, a promise has no legal effect
and it is illusory because there exists no legally enforceable commitment. 	Floss v.
Ryan’s Fam. Steak Houses, Inc., 211 F.3d 306, 315 (6th Cir. 2000). 	Moreover,
Plaintiff’s assertion that he would pay for the sessions is an impossibility given
Plaintiff’s financial status. When Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, he indicated to the Court
that he was unable to pay the filing fee because he has no money and owes over
$10,000 in debt. 	(ECF No. 2.) 	A contract is void where performance is impossible.
GLS Leasco, Inc. v. Navistar, Inc., No. 23-CV-12927, 2025 WL 2773121, at *5 (E.D.
Mich. Sept. 26, 2025). Therefore, Plaintiff failed to offer actual consideration, because
his promise was impossible to perform and no enforceable contract exists.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant committed fraud by failing to provide him with
a $2,500.00 loan with a 50% interest rate. 	(ECF No. 9, PageID.38.) 	First, Plaintiff
has failed to produce any loan documentation indicating that a loan agreement was
made between Plaintiff and Defendant. 	Second, even if a document exists, the loan
would be illegal and unenforceable. 	See Dugan v. Vlcko, 307 F. Supp. 3d 684, 694
(E.D. Mich. 2018) (“20% annual interest rate promised in the Note is usurious under
Michigan law”).
Case 1:25-cv-01231-JMB-MV ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/26/25 Page 4
of 5

5
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 contract and fraud claims are frivolous and fail to state claims upon which
relief may be granted.
NOTICE TO PARTIES: Objections to this Report and Recommendation must
be served on opposing parties and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen
(14) days of receipt of this Report and Recommendation. 	28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). 	Failure to file timely objections
constitutes a waiver of any further right to appeal. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d
947 (6th Cir. 1981). See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Dated: 	December 26, 2025 	/s/ `ttÜàxÇ ixÜÅttà
MAARTEN VERMAAT
U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-01231-JMB-MV ECF No. 12, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/26/25 Page 5
of 5