The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sean J. McLAUGHLIN United States District Judge
AMENDED MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER
Plaintiff's civil rights complaint was received by the Clerk of Court on September 22, 2008 was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates.
The Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation , filed on November 30, 2009, recommends that the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint  be granted in part and denied in part. The parties were allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file objections. On December 17, 2009, Plaintiff filed his objections to the Report and Recommendation  and a supporting declaration .
After de novo review of the Complaint and the documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation and Plaintiff's objections thereto as well as his declaration, the Court concludes that it will adopt the Report and Recommendation in part. Specifically, the Court declines to adopt the Report and Recommendation insofar as it relates to the Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim based on his placement in administrative custody, as the Court finds that there are material issues of fact relative to motivation which render summary judgment inappropriate as to that claim. However, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation in all other respects. Accordingly, the following order is entered:
AND NOW, to wit, this 8th day of July, 2010,
IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint  be, and hereby is, GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
1. Defendants Hays, Morley, and Marzulla are hereby DISMISSED from this case, due to Plaintiff's lack of intent to include them as Defendants;
2. Defendants Marks, Varner, Sharon M. Dombrowski, Toski, Grunland, and Overmyer are hereby DISMISSED from this case, due to their lack of personal involvement in any of the challenged actions;
3. As to the remaining Defendants, the motion to dismiss  is GRANTED with respect to:
(a) Plaintiff's First Amendment claim against Defendants Gill and Nicholson premised on his alleged denial of access to the courts;
(b) Plaintiff's equal protection claim regarding his placement in administrative custody;
(c) Plaintiff's equal protection claim against Defendant Woodard premised on the rejection of his non-legal correspondence; and
(d) Plaintiff's equal protection claim against Defendants Gill, Nicholson, Ireland, and Banta premised on the alleged denial of access to the law library.
Inasmuch as the Magistrate Judge converted said motion to a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment, JUDGMENT is hereby entered in favor of the relevant Defendants and against Plaintiff Bray ...