ORDER

B. AVANT EDENFIELD, District Judge.

After an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, to which Objections have been filed. In his Objections, Plaintiff contends that he submitted admissible evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer that Defendant deprived him of access to the courts. As the Magistrate Judge noted, "actual injury" to a non-frivolous cause of action is an essential element to Plaintiff's access to the courts claim. Plaintiff failed to set forth any facts which arguably indicate that he suffered an actual injury to a non-frivolous cause of action or that any actual injury was the result of Defendant's alleged actions.

Plaintiff also contends that his retaliation claim relied on not only the denial of his constitutional rights, but on the loss he suffered when Defendant allegedly threw away his legal materials. Plaintiff is required to show that any purported retaliatory action had the adverse effect of detering a person of ordinary firmness from exercising his First Amendment rights. Plaintiff fails to set forth facts which reveal that Defendant's alleged retaliatory actions caused him not to exercise his First Amendment rights.

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

SO ORDERED.