Cassaday v. Dow Chem. Co.

• Decision Date: 19 July 2022
• Docket Number: 22-11555
• Parties: KEVIN W. CASSADAY Plaintiff, v. DOW CHEMICAL CO., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

KEVIN W. CASSADAY Plaintiff,
v.
DOW CHEMICAL CO., et al., Defendants.

No. 22-11555

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division

July 19, 2022

HON. THOMAS L. LUDINGTON, DISTRICT JUDGE.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL

Patricia T. Morris, United States Magistrate Judge.

I. RECOMMENDATION

Pro se Plaintiff Kevin W. Cassaday filed a five-page complaint on June 25, 2022 alleging criminal acts under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 246, 249, 607, 1512, and 1514A by Defendants Dow Chemical Co. (“Dow”), Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) Andrew Liveris, attorney Robert Steelman, Michigan Workers' Compensation official/employee Emil Louis Ognisanti, Lisa Woons, also a Workers' Compensation official/employee, and Grant Hyatt, a physician practicing in Grand Rapids, Michigan.^[1] (Id. at PageID.1, 5). Because Plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis (“IFP”), (ECF No. 5), I have examined his complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, 1367, and 1915. For the following reasons, I conclude that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim, and therefore his complaint should be SUA SPONTE DISMISSED.

1

II. REPORT

A. The Complaint's Allegations

Plaintiff alleges that he “was subject to a trick scheme [and] retaliation prior to Sept. 2012” designed to keep workers' wages low and to deny them just compensation. (ECF No. 1, PageID.1-2). As can best be discerned, the rest of the Complaint relates to a failed Workers' Compensation claim. Plaintiff alleges that Workers' Compensation adjudicators protected the employers' interests over those of employee/workers. (Id. at PageID.2). He also alleges that Defendant Steelman “hired [an] unlicensed investigator” to harass him “for years,” including “bumping” the car of Plaintiff's spouse on one occasion. (Id.). He claims that Defendant Steelman hired “numerous doctors to get the narrative sought by [the] defense” in the apparent Workers' Compensation claim. (Id.). Plaintiff contends that the Statute of Limitations on his claims should be tolled because “the abuse has not stopped.” (Id.). He alleges that Defendants' actions destroyed his marriage” and “ruin[ed]” him. (Id.).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Liveris engaged in numerous improprieties as a CEO, including insider trading, bribing the President of the United States, eliminating the jobs of “lower workers,” enslaving workers, possibly hacking his computer, and manipulating local hospital care by ensuring that individuals representing corporate interests were appointed to the hospital boards. (Id. at PageID.3-4). He alleges further that poor working conditions resulted in lumbar spine problems and that he is now “wrongfully imprisoned” due to Defendants' malfeasance. (Id. at PageID.4).

2

B. Screening Standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court must sua sponte review and dismiss the complaints of plaintiffs proceeding IFP if it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such...