The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Jones
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS MEMORANDUM IS AS FOLLOWS:
Two Motions are presently pending before this Court. The first is a Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment ("Defendants' Motion") (doc. 25), filed by all remaining Defendants*fn1 to this action on August 30, 2007, and this second is a "Discovery Motion" ("Plaintiff's Motion") (doc. 43), filed by Plaintiff Miles Orlando Lee ("Plaintiff" or "Lee") on November 26, 2007.
On November 27, 2007, the United States Magistrate Judge J. Andrew Smyser ("Magistrate Judge Smyser" or "Magistrate Judge") issued a Report recommending that Defendants' Motion be granted. (Rec. Doc. 41). For the reasons that follow, we will adopt the learned Magistrate Judge's Report in its entirety, and, accordingly, grant Defendants' Motion and deny Plaintiff's Motion.
On March 7, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Complaint initiating the instant Bivens*fn2 action against multiple Defendants working at USP-Lewisburg.*fn3 (Rec. Doc. 1). On April 20, 2007, with leave of the Court, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint wherein Plaintiff expressed his desire to "drop" three (3) Defendants named in his original Complaint. (See Rec. Doc. 14 at 1 n.1). Thus, the three (3) identified Defendants were terminated as parties to this action.
As to the remaining eight (8) Defendants, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint contains a myriad of allegations. First, the Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant Shilo engaged in inappropriate sexual relations with inmates in exchange for those inmates harming prisoners who refused to participate in a conspiracy related to USP-Lewisburg's Food Service. Id. The Amended Complaint further alleges that the conspiracy involved encouraging inmates to steal food, sell it, and split the profits with Defendants working in Food Service ("Food Service Defendants"). Id. Notably, Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Shilo retaliated against him for his refusal to participate in the conspiracy. Id. Moreover, Plaintiff claims that Food Service Defendants engaged in racial discrimination. Id.
Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel (doc. 32) that was denied (doc. 39).
As noted above, presently pending before the Court are two Motions. The first, Defendants' Motion, was filed on August 30, 2007. (Rec. Doc. 25). The second, Plaintiff's Motion, was filed on November 26, 2007. (Rec. Doc. 43). Both Motions have been briefed. (See Rec. Docs. 30, 34, 44, 47).
Following briefing (see docs. 30, 34) on Defendants' Motion,*fn4 Magistrate Judge Smyser issued a November 27, 2007 Report recommending that Defendants' Motion be granted and that the case file closed. (See Rec. Doc. 41). On December 6, 2007, Plaintiff submitted two (2) filings: 1) a letter with an attached "Informal Resolution Attempt" (doc. 45); and 2) a submission styled as a response to Defendants' Motion (doc. 46), which we construe as Objections to Magistrate Judge Smyser's Report.
In light of the foregoing, all pending submissions are ripe for disposition.
When objections are filed to a report of a magistrate judge, we make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge to which there are objections. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980). See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.3l. Furthermore, district judges have wide discretion as to how they treat recommendations of a magistrate judge. See id. Indeed, in providing for a de novo review determination rather than a de novo hearing, Congress intended to permit whatever reliance a district judge, in the exercise of sound discretion, chooses to place ...