The opinion of the court was delivered by: Scullin, Senior Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Currently before the Court are Magistrate Judge Lowe's May 26, 2009 Report-Recommendation and Plaintiff's objections thereto. See Dkt. Nos. 57, 59.
In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Wood, Kelly and Bennett falsely advised him that a state-court wrongful death action filed against him would not result in money being removed from his inmate account, offered him assistance in defending that action, failed to take the promised action and, thereby, caused him to lose a substantial amount of money.
Defendants moved for summary judgment on the following grounds: (1) Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies; (2) Plaintiff had not alleged that Defendant Woods was personally involved in any of the alleged violations and could not raise a triable issue of fact that Defendant Kelly was personally involved in any violations that occurred after August 2003; (3) Plaintiff did not state a claim for denial of access to the courts or due process violations; (4) Plaintiff did not establish that Defendant Kelly was the proximate cause of any injury; and (5) Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. See Dkt. No. 50. Plaintiff opposed Defendants' motion. See Dkt. No. 52.
In a Report-Recommendation dated May 26, 2009, Magistrate Judge Lowe recommended that this Court grant Defendants' motion. Specifically, he found that Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff had not exhausted his administrative remedies. However, he found that they were entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that Defendant Woods was personally involved in any of the alleged violations, had failed to state a claim that Defendants had denied him his right to access to the courts, had failed to state a due process claim against Defendant Bennett, and had failed to state a First Amendment claim against Defendant Bennet for searching his cell.
Plaintiff filed timely objections to Magistrate Judge Lowe's recommendations. In his objections, Plaintiff appears to argue that Magistrate Judge Lowe should have recommended that the Court provide him with an opportunity to amend his complaint.*fn1 Plaintiff also asserts that Defendants Kelly and Bennett "intentionally plotted together to take that which was plaintiff [sic] his property, his money in his account." See Plaintiff's Objections at 3. He further claims that "the post deprivation remedy that [Magistrate Judge] Lowe recommend[ed] [he] seek in the court of claims is no longer available to [him]." See id.
In reviewing a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the district court may decide to accept, reject or modify those recommendations. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court conducts a de novo review of the portions of the magistrate judge's recommendations to which a party objects. See Pizarro v. Bartlett, 776 F. Supp. 815, 817 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). De novo review is not required, however, if a party fails to file specific objections. See Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (noting that where "no timely objection has been made, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record"). Nor is a court required to conduct de novo review where the parties' objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation repeat the arguments that the parties made in the original pleadings. See Edwards v. Fischer, 414 F. Supp. 2d 342, 346-47 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (citations omitted). Finally, even if the parties file no objections, the court must ensure that the face of the record contains no clear error. See Wilds, 262 F. Supp. 2d at 169 (quotation omitted).
B. Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim against Defendant Bennett
Magistrate Judge Lowe noted that, although Defendants did not address Plaintiff's "potential" Fourth Amendment claim, he would address this claim sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Magistrate Judge Lowe then went on to explain that the Fourth Amendment's proscription against unreasonable searches does not apply within the confines of a prison cell. See Report-Recommendation at 5 n.1 (citation omitted). Therefore, he recommended that this Court dismiss Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim against Defendant Bennett, which was based on Plaintiff's assertion that Defendant Bennett searched his cell, trashed it, and confiscated his legal documents. See id. at 4-5 (citing Dkt. No. 14 at ¶ 7(27)).
Plaintiff did not object to this recommendation. Since Magistrate Judge Lowe correctly noted that searches of prison cells do not implicate any protected constitutional right, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Lowe's recommendation and grants Defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim against Defendant Bennett. See DeMaio v. Mann, 877 F. Supp. 89, 95 (N.D.N.Y.) (noting that "[s]earches of prison cells, even arbitrary ...