ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DARRIN P. GAYLES, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White's Report of Magistrate Judge (the "Report") [ECF No. 87]. Plaintiff Bobby Minnis, who appears in this action pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 14, 2017—and amended that complaint on March 24, 2017—against A. Keaton, an appeals officer with the Bureau of Grievance Appeals in Tallahassee, Florida; Captain Lewis of the South Florida Reception Center; and nine John Doe male officers who were working the "Charley" shift at the South Florida Reception Center on the night of August 27, 2016, through the early morning hours of August 28, 2016 [ECF Nos. 1 & 20]. The matter was referred to Judge White for a ruling on all pretrial, nondispositive matters, and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 3].

Defendant Keaton filed a Motion to Dismiss (the "Motion") [ECF No. 52] the Amended Complaint [ECF No. 20] on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Judge White's Re-port recommends that this Court deny the Motion because Plaintiff was denied access to grievance forms, informed that he could not grieve the acts of appeals officers, and threatened with retaliation if he continued to file grievances. Judge White concluded that based on the totality of the circum-stances, the administrative grievance process was rendered "unavailable" to Plaintiff. Defendant Keaton filed timely objections to the Report.

A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommen-dation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections "pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with." United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). If no objections are filed, the district court need only review the report and recommendation for "clear error." Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note.

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report, the record, and the applicable law. This Court agrees with Judge White's well-reasoned analysis and recommendation that the Motion should be denied. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

DONE AND ORDERED.