The opinion of the court was delivered by: A. Richard Caputo United States District Judge
(MAGISTRATE JUDGE MANNION)
Presently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mannion's Report and Recommendation (the "R & R") (Doc. 62) to Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. (Doc. 23.) The R & R recommends granting Defendants' partial motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Randy Carl Hinkley objects only to the recommendation to dismiss the claims against Defendant Gene Mull. (Doc. 63.) Because Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Mull are time-barred and the uncontested portions of the R & R are not clearly erroneous, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 62) will be adopted in its entirety.
As set forth in greater detail in the R & R, Plaintiff commenced this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on March 21, 2011. (Doc. 1.) The original complaint raised claims related to the denial of Plaintiff's parole. (Doc. 62, 1.) On August 16, 2011, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding additional Defendants and claims. (Id.) The Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was sentenced in 2005 to a 3.5 to 8-year prison term for escape and defiant trespass/criminal mischief. (Id. at 3.)
Plaintiff was incarcerated at SCI-Coal Township on December 1, 2005. (Id.) Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff was placed in a Therapeutic Community Program and transferred to the Therapeutic Community block. (Id.) As part of his placement in this program, Plaintiff's law library time was reduced to two hours per week and he was required to attend Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous ("AA/NA") meetings. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that he was told that he would be "maxed out" if he did not attend the Therapeutic Community Program. (Id.)
Plaintiff was removed from the program in late 2007, and his application for parole in January 2008 was denied based upon his failure to complete the program. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff was offered the opportunity to return to the Therapeutic Community Program in April 2008, but he refused. (Id.)
In January 2009, Plaintiff again requested parole. (Id.) In his application, Plaintiff complained that he was being coerced into attending AA/NA meetings and that he was subjected to homosexual acts by his cellmate while in the Therapeutic Community Program. Plaintiff's application for parole was denied on March 5, 2009. (Id.) Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff was afforded an alternative option to the Therapeutic Community Program, which he completed on January 12, 2010. (Id.)
On December 6, 2010, Plaintiff's application for parole was granted. (Id.) As conditions of his parole, Plaintiff was to complete an inpatient treatment program and maintain employment. (Id.) The plaintiff's tentative release date was scheduled for April 19, 2011. (Id.) Prior to his release, however, Plaintiff submitted correspondence indicating that he was no longer seeking to be released on parole and he instead wanted to "max out" and return to California. (Id.)
After commencing this action on March 21, 2011, Plaintiff subsequently filed the Amended Complaint on August 16, 2011. (Doc. 18.) Defendants moved to partially dismiss the Amended Complaint on October 14, 2011. (Doc. 23.) Magistrate Judge Mannion issued a R & R on August 16, 2012, recommending that Defendants' partial motion to dismiss be granted. (Doc. 62.) Plaintiff filed a single objection to the R & R. (Doc. 63.) As Plaintiff's objection has now been briefed, it is ripe for disposition.
Where objections to the Magistrate Judge's report are filed, the court must conduct a de novo review of the contested portions of the report. Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir. 1989) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). However, this only applies to the extent that a party's objections are both timely and specific. Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6--7 (3d Cir. 1984) (emphasis added). In conducting a de novo review, the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the factual findings or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Owens v. Beard, 829 F. Supp. 736, 738 (M.D. Pa. 1993). Although the review is de novo, the law permits the court to rely on the recommendations of the magistrate judge to the extent it deems proper. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 675--76, 100 S. Ct. 2406, 65 L. Ed. 2d 424 (1980); Goney, 749 F.2d at 7; Ball v. United States Parole Comm'n, 849 F.Supp. 328, 330 (M.D. Pa.1994). Uncontested portions of the report may be reviewed at a standard determined by the district court. ...