ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

JAMES V. SELNA, District Judge.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, all pleadings and documents filed and lodged in this action, Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint ("Motion") and the parties' related briefing, the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge ("Report"), Plaintiff's Objections to the Report and Defendants' Response, the Magistrate Judge's Order of March 20, 2018 ("March 20 Order"), and Plaintiff's Response to the March 20 Order ("Response"). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which objections have been stated.

The Complaint asserts Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Lewis and Morris, in their individual and official capacities, based upon Plaintiff's failure to obtain treatment with Harvoni. The Complaint alleges that both Defendants acted with deliberate indifference in failing to provide him with Harvoni. In her Report, the Magistrate Judge found that the Complaint failed to plead the required deliberate indifference on the part of either Defendant and that, based on the facts and circumstances alleged, Plaintiff would not be able to do so, and thus, amendment would be futile. The Report also addressed several new theories posited by Plaintiff in his Opposition to the Motion and found that they did not state viable bases for liability against the two Defendants. The Magistrate Judge therefore recommended that the Motion be granted and that leave to amend be denied.

In his Objections to the Report, Plaintiff conceded that his Complaint is defective, stated that he had "issues" he wishes to address," and asked for leave to amend, although he did not identify any such issues or bases for amendment. The Magistrate Judge issued the March 20 Order in response, which provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to show that leave to amend is warranted. The March 20 Order directed Plaintiff to file a response as follows: "The response need not contain a formal amended complaint and may be informal, but it must set forth factual allegations and one or more legal theories of Section 1983 liability sufficient to show that, if given an opportunity to amend, Plaintiff could file an amended complaint that states a Section 1983 claim upon which relief could be granted."

Plaintiff has filed a timely Response to the March 20 Order, which the Court has reviewed carefully. Plaintiff states that, in an amended complaint, he would again sue Defendants Lewis and Morris in their individual and official capacities alleging an Eighth Amendment claim based upon the denial to him of Harvoni treatment. Although Plaintiff states that he would allege that these Defendants acted with deliberate indifference, he does not set forth a single factual allegation in support. None of the statements in the Response differ from the allegations contained in the present Complaint, which the Report found wanting. Nothing in the Response indicates even the possibility that a viable theory of Section 1983 liability exists against the Defendants, much less that, if Plaintiff were granted leave to amend, he could plead a viable claim against them.

Having completed its review, the Court concludes that nothing in the Objections or the Response affects or alters the analysis and conclusions set forth in the Report. The Court accepts the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Motion is GRANTED; (2) the Complaint is dismissed without leave to amend; and (3) Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice.