Loudenslager v. Local #131 Plumbers-Steamfitters

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Bruce Loudenslager
v. 	Civil No. 17-cv-698-LM
Local # 131 Plumbers-
Steamfitters
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Bruce Loudenslager, appearing pro se, has sued Local # 131
of the Plumbers and Steamfitters Union (“Local # 131”),
alleging, among other things, that various union officials are
liable for embezzling union funds, and for several forms of
criminal activity including torture and murder. 	Before this
magistrate judge for a report and recommendation is defendant’s
unopposed motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. 	For the reasons that follow,
defendant’s motion should be granted.
I. The Legal Standard
Ruling on a motion to dismiss for “failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6),
requires the court to conduct a limited inquiry, focusing not on
“whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the
Case 1:17-cv-00698-LM Document 14 Filed 04/24/18 Page 1 of 5

claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims.”
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974). 	When conducting
that limited inquiry, the court must “take the complaint’s well-
pleaded facts as true, and . . . draw reasonable inferences in
the plaintiff’s favor.” 	Barchock v. CVS Health Corp., 886 F.3d
43, 48 (1st Cir. 2018) (citing SEC v. Tambone, 597 F.3d 436, 441
(1st Cir. 2010) (en banc)). 	Moreover:
Well-pleaded facts must be “non-conclusory” and “non-
speculative.” 	Schatz v. Republican State Leadership
Comm., 669 F.3d 50, 55 (1st Cir. 2012). 	. . . 	To
survive dismissal . . . the complaint must “contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Tambone, 597 F.3d at 437 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). 	“If the factual
allegations in the complaint are too meager, vague, or
conclusory to remove the possibility of relief from
the realm of mere conjecture, the complaint is open to
dismissal.” 	Id. (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
Barchock, 886 F.3d at 48 (parallel citations omitted).
II. Background
In his complaint, plaintiff describes himself as a retired
and disabled member of Local # 131. 	He summarizes his claims
this way:
Theft of Union Pension Funds. 	Conspiracy to commit
murder, torture, and murder by use of U.S. Government
CIA agency and its satellites. 	Also the use of local
radio stations and other F.C.C. registered satellites
and systems.
2
Case 1:17-cv-00698-LM Document 14 Filed 04/24/18 Page 2 of 5

Compl. (doc. no. 1). 	He supports his claim with the following
factual allegations:
We [i.e., plaintiff and his family] have been
targets of harassment, torture, killing, invasion of
privacy. 	Our computers, phones, internet, T.V., are
all being monitored, recorded, placed on the internet,
and sold on C-D and DVD’s.
Local # 131 with help of the C.I.A., radio
stations and other people are using U.S. Government
satellites to cause all of this to happen. 	Microwave
torture and killing has happened to myself
approximately 15,000 times and also was used to murder
my brother in the year 2000.
The people at Local # 131 are well aware of who
is involved and will give you the information needed
if asked.
. . . .
$49,000,000.00 has been embezzled from the Local
# 131 pension fund and from the Insurance Programmers
Office in Wallingford, CT.
. . . .
There have been 15 members [of Local # 131] who
have been murdered by members and friends of Denis
Adams, former President [of Local # 131].1
Id. at 3-4, 7, 8.
1 While plaintiff names two of the alleged murder victims,
he goes on to say: “I don’t have the names of the other victims,
but I am sure Mr. Adams would give you the information you
needed if asked.” 	Compl. (doc. no. 1, 9). 	Plaintiff’s request
for further research by the court a recurring theme in his
compliant. 	See id. at 2, 11.
3
Case 1:17-cv-00698-LM Document 14 Filed 04/24/18 Page 3 of 5

III. Discussion
Defendant moves the court to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint
for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
As noted, plaintiff has not objected.
Defendant’s motion to dismiss explains, quite cogently, why
plaintiff’s complaint does not state a claim upon which relief
can be granted. 	Presuming that plaintiff has adequately
identified a legally cognizable cause of action in the first
instance, see Erikson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per
curiam) (explaining court’s obligation to construe pro se
pleadings liberally), his factual allegations “are too meager,
vague, [and] conclusory to remove the possibility of relief from
the realm of mere conjecture,” Tambone, 598 F.3d at 442, and, as
a consequence, those allegations do not “nudge[] [his] claims
across the line from conceivable to plausible,” Twombly, 550
U.S. at 570. 	Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint should be
dismissed. 	See id.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons described above, defendant’s motion to
dismiss, doc. no. 8, should be granted, and the clerk of the
court should be directed to close this case.
Any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be
4
Case 1:17-cv-00698-LM Document 14 Filed 04/24/18 Page 4 of 5

filed within 14 days of receipt of this notice. 	See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	The 14-day period may be extended upon
motion. 	Failure to file a specific written objection to the
Report and Recommendation within the specified time waives the
right to appeal the district court’s order. 	See Santos-Santos
v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
April 24, 2018
cc: 	Bruce Loudenslager, pro se
Robert M. Cheverie, Esq.
James A.W. Shaw, Esq.
5
Case 1:17-cv-00698-LM Document 14 Filed 04/24/18 Page 5 of 5