ORDER

TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On January 7, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 109.) Defendant has filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 110) and Plaintiff has responded (ECF No. 111).

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

The Court does not find Defendant's argument that "the Magistrate Judge collapsed the constitutional inquiry into the qualified immunity inquiry" compelling. (ECF No. 110 at 1.) The Magistrate Judge performed a thorough analysis of both prongs of the qualified immunity framework and properly determined that a clearly established right against retaliatory punishment existed at the time and that in the circumstances of this case (an alleged First Amendment retaliation claim) consideration of Defendant's motive is applicable to the qualified immunity analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 7, 2016 (ECF No. 109), are adopted in full; and

2. Defendant Cappel's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 83) is denied.