LISA WOOD, Chief Judge
After an independent and de novo review, the undersigned concurs, in part, with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which Objections have been filed. In his Objections, Plaintiff states that Defendants acted with reckless indifference to his constitutional rights by placing him in a strip cell, which seemingly makes him able to sustain a punitive damages claim against Defendants. This portion of Plaintiffs Objections is overruled. Plaintiff has not alleged he suffered a physical injury due to Defendants' actions, and, accordingly, he cannot sustain a punitive damages claim against Defendants. Plaintiffs punitive damages claim against Defendants is DISMISSED.
However, the portion of Plaintiffs Objections concerning his procedural due process claim is sustained, and the undersigned rejects that portion of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. A liberal reading of Plaintiffs pleadings reveals his allegation that he was placed in a strip cell after having a disciplinary report written against him, and he did not receive proper notice of the disciplinary charges prior to his placement in the strip cell. Plaintiff arguably sets forth a colorable procedural due process claim against Defendants Hart, Holden, and Crosby. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-66 (1974) (constitutionally adequate process requires compliance with the minimum due process protections afforded to an inmate in prison disciplinary proceedings: (1) the right to receive written notice of the charges against him at least 24 hours before his hearing; (2) the right to call witnesses and present documentary evidence, where doing so would not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals; and (3) the right to receive a written statement setting forth the disciplinary committee's findings of fact.). Plaintiff is allowed to proceed with his due process claim.
A copy of Plaintiff's Objections and a copy of this Order shall be served upon Defendants Hart, Holden, and Crosby by the United States Marshal without prepayment of cost. This Order does not alter the Magistrate Judge's Order dated June 9, 2011. The parties shall be guided by the instructions contained in the June 9, 2011, Order.
SO ORDERED.