ORDER

TROY L. NUNLEY, District Judge.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 2, 2018, 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. Both parties have filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

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, with one exception noted below.

In the findings and recommendations, Defendant's qualified immunity claim is analyzed under Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001). (ECF No. 43 at 10.) In Saucier, the Supreme Court stated that in resolving government officials' qualified immunity claim, a court must first analyze whether a plaintiff alleges facts sufficient to show that the defendant's violated the claimant's constitutional rights. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201. In Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009), the Supreme Court receded from Saucier, deciding that "while the sequence set forth there is often appropriate, it should no longer be regarded as mandatory," and district courts should exercise their discretion in deciding which of then two prongs to analyze first. Id. at 236.

This Court has reviewed Defendant's qualified immunity claim in light of Pearson and determined that the analysis of each prong in the findings and recommendations is correct and supported by the record and this Court adopts the conclusion in the findings and recommendation.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 2, 2018 are adopted in full;

2. Defendants' motion to dismiss, ECF No. 31, is DENIED as to defendant Rapoport with respect to the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim and against defendant Virga with respect to the First Amendment retaliation claim;

3. Plaintiff's procedural due process claim against defendant Rapoport is DISMISSED;

4. All claims for monetary damages against the defendants in their official capacities are DISMISSED;

5. Plaintiff's motion to process the case, ECF No. 42, is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.