RICHARD J. ARCARA
DECISION AND ORDER
The above-referenced case was referred to Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B). Defendants filed an unopposed motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A and Rules 12(b)(1), (2) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants also moved for a stay of all proceedings pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. On September 19, 2013, Magistrate Judge McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part, and ordered that the motion for a stay be granted.
On October 9, 2013 plaintiff filed objections to those portions of the Report and Recommendation which recommended that certain of his claims be dismissed. Defendants filed a reply on October 30, 2013. The Court deemed the matter submitted without oral argument.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. Upon de novo review, and after reviewing the submissions of the parties, the Court adopts the proposed findings of the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge McCarthy's Report and Recommendation, defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint is denied to the extent it seeks to dismiss the deliberate indifference/failure to protect claims against defendants Schunh, Dr. Evans, Dr. Rao and Dr. Kowski, in their individual capacities, but is otherwise granted.
The matter is referred back to Magistrate Judge McCarthy for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED.
___________________
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE