Reese v. Core Civic et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
TERRANCE REESE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORECIVIC, INC., et al.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:23-cv-01054
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc.
No. 35) recommending that the Court grant Jermaris Porter, Ajee Smith, and Vince Vantell’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 26). Terrance Reese, proceeding pro se, has filed timely
objections to the R&R. (Doc. No. 36). Porter, Smith, and Vantell have filed a response to Reese’s
objections. (Doc. No. 37). For the following reasons, Reese’s objections will be overruled, the
R&R will be adopted, and Porter, Smith, and Vantell’s Motion for Summary Judgment will be
granted.
I. 	BACKGROUND
The Court will not repeat the entire factual background and procedural history of this case
because it is set forth in the R&R. 	(Doc. No. 35 at 1-8). 	In short, Reese alleges that while
incarcerated at Trousdale Turner Correctional Center (“Trousdale”), a CoreCivic facility, he was
repeatedly assaulted and robbed by other inmates. (Id. at 1-2). When the events occurred, Vantell
was Trousdale’s warden, Porter was Trousdale’s Chief of Security, and Smith was a Captain. (Id.
at 1-2). Reese alleges that Vantell, Porter, and Smith, employees of CoreCivic, failed to protect
him or otherwise acted improperly in response to his multiple assaults and robberies, in violation
Case 3:23-cv-01054 Document 39 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>

2
of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	(Id. at 1-3).1 	Vantell, Porter, and Smith filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment. (Doc. Nos. 26-31). Reese filed a response in opposition, (Doc. No. 32), and Vantell,
Porter, and Smith filed a reply. (Doc. Nos. 33, 34).
The Magistrate Judge recommends granting Vantell, Porter, and Smith’s Motion for
Summary Judgment because Reese has not presented evidence to support a § 1983 violation on
either a theory of supervisory liability or a failure-to-protect claim. (See generally Doc. No. 35).
First, the Magistrate Judge concludes that Reese cannot succeed on a supervisory liability claim
because he has not presented evidence that Vantell, Porter, and Smith participated in, encouraged,
authorized, approved, or acquiesced to unconstitutional conduct that caused his injuries. (Id. at 9-
10). 	Second, the Magistrate Judge concludes that Reese cannot succeed on a failure-to-protect
claim because the evidence shows that Vantell, Porter, and Smith did not know of and disregard
substantial risk of serious harm to Reese. (Id. at 11). Rather, the evidence shows that they did not
ignore Reese’s requests for help, instead responded by requesting his transfer to a different housing
unit. (Id. at 11). The Magistrate Judge also finds that the evidence shows it is appropriate to house
medium-custody inmates with minimum-custody inmates like Reese at Trousdale. (Id. at 11-12).
II. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules provide that only “specific
written objections” to the Magistrate Judge’s proposed factual findings and legal conclusions are
considered “proper” for consideration. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Proper objections also
must state with particularity the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge’s report
or proposed findings or recommendations to which an objection is made, and must
be accompanied by sufficient documentation including, but not limited to,
affidavits, pertinent exhibits, and if necessary, transcripts of the record to apprise
the District Judge of the bases for the objections. A separately filed supporting
memorandum of law, not exceeding twenty-five (25) pages, must accompany the
objections.
1 CoreCivic has been dismissed. (Doc. No. 5).
Case 3:23-cv-01054 Document 39 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>

3
M.D. Tenn. L.R. 72.02(a). “The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate
judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (emphasis added).
In so doing, “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition;
receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id.
“The failure to properly, specifically, and timely object to a report and recommendation
releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter.” Lawhorn v. Buy Buy Baby,
Inc., No. 3:20-CV-00201, 2021 WL 1063075, at *1 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 19, 2021) (citing Frias v.
Frias, No. 2:18-cv-00076, 2019 WL 549506, at *2 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 12, 2019)). When objections
are not properly raised, “[t]he district court’s attention is not focused on any specific issues for
review, thereby making the initial reference to the magistrate [judge] useless.” Howard v. Sec’y
of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, “[t]he functions of
the district court are effectively duplicated as both the magistrate and the district court perform
identical tasks.” Id. 	“This duplication of time and effort wastes judicial resources rather than
sav[es] them, and runs contrary to the purposes of the Magistrates Act.” Id. With these standards
in mind, the Court now turns to Reese’s objections.
III. 	DISCUSSION
Reese’s objections to the R&R are not specific. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). In his first
objection, Reese states that he “never contended that [] Porter, Norman, or Smith authorized
inmates to move from pod to pod,” as suggested in the R&R, that they “ignored his cries for help
for over sixty (60) days” and “failed to protect him, which violated his [E]ighth [A]mendment
rights.” (Doc. No. 26 at 3). In his second objection, Reese argues that the defendants’ motion for
summary judgment was denied in circuit court, so their motion for summary judgment should also
be denied in this case. (Doc. No. 36 at 3-4).
Case 3:23-cv-01054 Document 39 Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>

4
These objections do not “state with particularity the specific portions of the [R&R] to
which an objection is made.” M.D. Tenn. L.R. 72.02(a); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). In fact,
no where in Reese’s objection does he specify what parts of the R&R he contests. Instead, Reese’s
objections repeat what is in his Complaint. (See generally Doc. No. 1). Indeed, “an ‘objection’
that . . . simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an ‘objection’ as that term is
used in this context.” 	VanDriver v. Martin, 304 F. Supp. 2d 934, 938 (E.D. Mich. 2004).
Additionally, Exhibit A to Reese’s objections, (Doc. No. 36-1), was not before the Magistrate
Judge, so this Court will not consider it. See AES-Apex Emp. Servs., Inc. v. Rotondo, 924 F.3d
857, 867 (6th Cir. 2019) (“a district court never abuses its discretion when it holds that an issue
not actually presented to a magistrate judge is forfeited.”). Finally, Reese’s statements about the
suit he allegedly filed in circuit court are not “accompanied by sufficient documentation.”2 M.D.
Tenn. L.R. 72.02(a). Therefore, Reese’s objections have not been properly raised.
Nevertheless, even if Reese’s objections were specific enough, this Court would overrule
them. Reese objects that he “never contended that [] Porter, Norman, or Smith authorized inmates
to move from pod to pod.” (Doc. No. 26 at 3). The R&R is not at odds with this contention—
rather, the R&R recognizes that Rees “does not contend that Defendants themselves permitted
unauthorized inmates to move from one housing unit to another.” (Doc. No. 35 at 9). 	Further,
Reese’s statements about the lawsuit filed in circuit court is not referenced in the R&R and is not
referenced in the Complaint. (Doc. No. 1).
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:
1. 	The R&R (Doc. No. 35) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED.
2 The instant action was not removed from state court to federal court, nor can this Court locate
any related pending state court cases.
Case 3:23-cv-01054 Document 39 Filed 01/20/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>

5
2. 	Vantell, Porter, and Smith’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 26) is
GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PRJUDICE.
3. 	Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial Date and Stay Pretrial Deadlines (Doc. No.
38) is DENIED AS MOOT.
This is a final order. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 58 and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:23-cv-01054 Document 39 Filed 01/20/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>