ORDER

LISA GODBEY WOOD, Chief District Judge.

After an independent and de novo review of the record, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which Objections were filed.1 Defendant United States of America ("United States") filed a Response. In his Objections, Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge overlooked his broader claim that the prison officials had a constitutional duty to protect him from attack. However, it is Plaintiff who overlooks that he only named the United States of America as a Defendant for the negligent actions of its employees, and, as such, his Complaint was served based on the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), which permits causes of action in tort against the United States of America. The FTCA does not permit a plaintiff to pursue a cause of action for constitutional violations. If Plaintiff was not satisfied with the basis of the Court's service of his Complaint, the time for objection is not in response to the Magistrate Judge's Report addressing the United States' Motion to Dismiss.

Plaintiff also objects to the Magistrate Judge's failure to consider the attachments the United States submitted in support of its Motion. It was not error for the Magistrate Judge to not consider these attachments. It is clear the Magistrate Judge relied on the pleadings without attachments and the law in reaching his recommended disposition of the United States' Motion.

Plaintiff's Objections are overruled. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted as the opinion of the Court. The United States' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal.

SO ORDERED.