Taylor v. Bullard et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
COLUMBIA DIVISION
COREY TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
v.
SEBASTIAN BULLARD,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. 1:24-cv-00052
JUDGE RICHARDSON
ORDER
Pending before the Court1 is the report and recommendation (Doc. No. 47, “R&R”) of the
Magistrate Judge, which recommends that the Court grant the motion for summary judgment (Doc.
No. 28, “Motion”) filed by Defendant,2 Sebastian Bullard. (Doc. No. 47 at 1). No objections to the
R&R have been filed and the time for filing objections has now expired.3
Absent any objection to the background and relevant facts (regarding underlying
circumstances of this case) set forth by the Magistrate Judge in the R&R, the Court adopts that
background and those relevant facts in their entirety and includes it here for reference.
1 Herein, “the Court” refers to the undersigned District Judge, as opposed to the Magistrate Judge who
authored the R&R.
2 One other party, Kenneth Smith, was previously a defendant in his action. Kenneth Smith was dismissed
as a defendant in this action via an order (Doc. No. 8) issued on July 29, 2024. Thus, Sebastian Bullard is
the sole remaining non-terminated defendant in this action, and accordingly Court will refer to Sebastian
Bullard as “Defendant,” herein.
3 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party has fourteen (14) days from receipt of the R&R in which to file
any written objections to the Recommendation with the District Court. For pro se plaintiffs, like Plaintiff,
the Court is willing to extend this 14-day deadline by three days to allow time for filings to be transported
by mail. But even this extension does not help Plaintiff because the R&R was filed on February 13, 2026,
and as of March 5, 2026, Plaintiff has not filed any objections.
Case 1:24-cv-00052 Document 48 Filed 03/05/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

Corey Taylor (“Plaintiff”) is an inmate of the Tennessee Department of
Correction (“TDOC”) currently confined at the Turney Center Industrial Complex
(“Turney Center”) in Only, Tennessee. He filed this lawsuit pro se and in forma
pauperis on May 16, 2024, seeking various forms of relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
for violations of his constitutional rights alleged to have occurred at the Turney
Center in April-May 2024. See Complaint (Docket Entry No. 1).
Upon initial review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)
and 1915A, the Court found that Plaintiff stated a colorable First Amendment claim
against Sebastian Bullard (“Defendant”), a correctional officer at the Turney
Center, based on Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff
for pursuing a prison grievance. See Memorandum Opinion and Order at 5-6.
Plaintiff’s claims against another correctional officer were dismissed upon initial
review. Id. at 6-7.
After Defendant Bullard filed an answer (Docket Entry No. 13), a
scheduling order was entered that provided for a period of pretrial activity in the
case, including a period for discovery. All scheduling order deadlines have now
expired. A trial date has not been set in the case pending resolution of the motion
for summary judgment.
* * *
Plaintiff generally alleges that Defendant often doesn’t follow prison policy
and unnecessarily antagonizes inmates, particularly inmates who are Muslims, by
speaking to them in a hostile and demeaning manner, by “repeatedly” searching
their cells, and by “taking items such as pens and toilet paper” from inmates’ cells.
See Amended Complaint at 2.
The events at issue in the case, however, involve a small number of
interactions between Plaintiff and Defendant that took place over the span of a week
in April 2024. During the evening of April 24, 2024, Plaintiff was in the cell of
another inmate when Defendant came to the cell and told Plaintiff that he needed
to leave the cell. Plaintiff alleges that the other inmate was a Muslim Imam and that
he and Plaintiff were privately speaking about a death that had occurred in
Plaintiff’s family. Plaintiff objected to how Defendant spoke to him and filed a
prison grievance against Defendant for “staff misconduct malfeasance” based on
the incident. See Grievance #365590/24-161, dated April 24, 2024 (Docket Entry
No. 28-3 at 19-20). In the grievance, Plaintiff asserted that Defendant “got smart”
during the incident and spoke in an ill-mannered, hostile, and rude way, and that
Defendant’s behavior did not comport with TDOC policy, ABA and ACA
standards and “all that the TDOC stands for in rehabilitation, respect, dignity, and
humane welfare of the incarcerated.” Id. Although the grievance was directed at
only the incident between Plaintiff and Defendant in the cell, Plaintiff had 13 other
inmates sign the grievance and asserted that the “treatment that I speak of” has also
happened to these other inmates. Id. at 20. In his grievance, Plaintiff requested that
Case 1:24-cv-00052 Document 48 Filed 03/05/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

Defendant not be allowed to continue to perform his duties. Id. Plaintiff alleges that
he told another staff member, Sgt. Ricketts, about Defendant’s conduct and about
the grievance and that Ricketts agreed with Plaintiff that Defendant’s conduct was
wrong.
Plaintiff alleges that five days later, on April 29, 2024, Defendant engaged
in acts of harassment against him because of the grievance. Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant again told Plaintiff to leave the cell of another inmate and also cursed at
Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that when he went to lunch that day, Defendant searched
him despite Plaintiff having already walked through a metal detector and said to
him “I am [going to] show you how to fuck with me.” See Complaint at 2. Plaintiff
alleges that he reported both incidents to Sgt. Ricketts, who said that he had spoken
to Defendant.
Defendant then came to Plaintiff’s cell a few hours later and ordered
Plaintiff to step out while his cell was searched. Plaintiff contends that this was
harassment because the cells in the housing unit had already undergone cell
inspections that day. Unpleasantries between the men were exchanged, and Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant told him word to the effect of “you want to fuck with me so
I am [going to] fuck with you.” Id. Plaintiff states that he initially refused to leave
his cell unless Defendant called for a sergeant but that he ultimately stepped out of
his cell while Defendant searched the cell and removed red pens from the cell.
Plaintiff alleges that Sgt. Smith eventually arrived at the cell, at which time Plaintiff
recounted his recent history of problems with Defendant but that Smith, while
agreeing with Plaintiff that Defendant was wrong, nonetheless escorted Plaintiff to
segregation because Defendant had reported that Plaintiff had threatened to “kick
[Defendant’s] ass.” Id. at 2-3. That evening, Defendant issued a disciplinary report
to Plaintiff for the disciplinary offense of threatening an employee based on
Defendant’s allegation that Plaintiff stated that he was “going to kick your ass”
during the cell search. See Docket Entry No. 1-1 at 2–4.
Plaintiff pled guilty to the charge on May 2, 2024, but alleges that he was
advised to do so by his inmate advisor so that he would avoid additional time in
segregation that would accompany being found guilty of the charge after a hearing
and that he “was forced to sign the charge under duress and intimidation.” See
Amended Complaint at 3. Plaintiff asserts that he was scheduled to be released from
segregation on May 8, three days after the date his Complaint was signed.
(Doc. No. 47 at 1-4 (footnotes omitted)). The Magistrate Judge concluded that the Motion should
be granted.
No party has filed objections to the R&R, and the time to file objections with the Court has
passed, as explained in a footnote above.
Case 1:24-cv-00052 Document 48 Filed 03/05/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>

When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation regarding a dispositive
pretrial 	matter, 	the 	district 	judge 	must 	review 	de 	novo 	any 	portion 	of 	the 	report 	and
recommendation to which a proper objection is made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The district judge
may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition, review further evidence, or return the
matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Id. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) provides that a party
may file “specific written objections” to a report and recommendation, and Local Rule 72.02(a)
provides that such objections must be written and must state with particularity the specific portions
of the magistrate judge’s report or proposed findings or recommendations to which an objection
is made.
The failure to object to a report and recommendation releases the Court from its duty to
independently review the matter. Id.; Hart v. Bee Prop. Mgmt., Inc., No. 18-cv-11851, 2019 WL
1242372, at * 1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 18, 2019) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)). A
district judge is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, those aspects of a
report and recommendation to which no objection is made. Ashraf v. Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt,
Inc., 322 F. Supp. 3d 879, 881 (W.D. Tenn. 2018); Benson v. Walden Sec., No. 3:18-CV-0010,
2018 WL 6322332, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 4, 2018) (citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150).
Absent objection, the R&R (Doc. No. 47) is adopted and approved. Accordingly, the
Motion (Doc. No. 28) is GRANTED, and Defendant is granted summary judgment. The Clerk is
DIRECTED to enter judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
ELI RICHARDSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:24-cv-00052 Document 48 Filed 03/05/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>