The opinion of the court was delivered by: Scullin, Senior Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Currently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Treece's February 16, 2011 Report-Recommendation and Order, in which he recommended that this Court grant Defendant Superintendent of Franklin Correctional Facility's motion to dismiss, dismiss Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claims against all Defendants for failure to state a claim, dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims against Defendants, to the extent he asserts those claims against them in their official capacities, and that the Court provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to amend his complaint to identify the "Doe" Defendants. See Dkt. No. 14 at 15. The parties have not filed any objections to Magistrate Judge Treece's recommendations.
Plaintiff filed this civil rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights during his incarceration at Franklin Correctional Facility when, with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, they deprived him of adequate medical care. See generally Dkt. No. 5. In his amended complaint, Plaintiff did not identify any of the Defendant by their surnames. Instead, he provided the Court with each Defendant's respective job title. Of the four Defendants, service was effected only on Defendant Superintendent Darwin LaClair, who moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). See Dkt. No. 10. Plaintiff opposed that motion. See Dkt. No. 11.
"When a party does not object to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the court reviews that report-recommendation for clear error or manifest injustice." Goston v. Potter, No. 9:08-CV-478, 2010 WL 4736261, *1 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2010) (citation omitted). Upon completing that review, "'the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations made by the magistrate judge."'" Id. (quotation omitted). Since the parties have not objected to Magistrate Judge Treece's recommendations, the Court will review the same under this standard.
In response to Defendant LaClair's motion, Plaintiff stated that he was able to identify three of the four previously unidentified Defendants as follows: "the unknown Superintendent of [Franklin] is Darwin LaClair; the unknown facility physician is Dr. G. Champagne; and the unknown male nurse is P. Debiew." See Dkt. No. 11 at 4. He did not identify the other Doe Defendant.
Magistrate Judge Treece recognized that Plaintiff should have filed a motion to amend his amended complaint in order to identify these Defendants. See Dkt. No. 14 at 4. However, in light of Plaintiff's pro se staff, he construed Plaintiff's submissions as seeking such an amendment and granted the same. See id.
C. Defendant LaClair's motion to dismiss
1. Claims against Defendants in their official capacities
In support of his motion to dismiss, Defendant LaClair argued that, because Plaintiff had only identified Defendants by their job titles, the Court should construe this action as against Defendants only in their official capacities and dismiss the ...