The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Kosik
AND NOW, THIS 29th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2006, IT APPEARING TO THE COURT THAT:
 On August 31, 2006, plaintiff filed the above-captioned action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against "John Kasheta and Waymart Staff;" (Doc. 1)
 the matter was assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Blewitt;
 Akins' complaint asserts that the defendant Kasheta, "is constantly harassing me and breaking my confidentiality;"
 the plaintiff specifically accuses the defendant of revealing to other inmates what the plaintiff said in his team meeting;
 the complaint requests $100,000 in compensatory and $25,000 in punitive damages;
 on September 11, 2006, Magistrate Judge Blewitt reviewed the plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and issued a Report and Recommendation suggesting that we: (1) dismiss Akins' claim against "Waymart Staff" as said defendant is not a person under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) dismiss Akins' claims for harassment against defendant Kasheta as verbal harassment alone does not violate a protected liberty interest or deny a prisoner equal protection of the law; and, (3) dismiss Akins' claims against defendant Kasheta for breaking plaintiff's confidentiality as the claim fails to set forth a violation of privacy claim recognized under § 1983; (Doc. 7)
 neither the plaintiff, nor the defendants, filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.
IT FURTHER APPEARING THAT:
 if no objections are filed to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the court need not conduct a de novo review of the plaintiff's claims. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53, 106 S.Ct. 466 (1985). Nonetheless, the usual practice of the district court is to give "reasoned consideration" to a Magistrate Judge's report prior to adopting it. Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d. Cir. 1987);
 having examined the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, we agree with his recommendations;
 we concur with the Magistrate Judge's analysis of the plaintiff's complaint and find the Magistrate Judge's review of the record to be comprehensive;
 specifically, we agree with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to set forth any cognizable ...