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 Defendant filed Objections. In his Objections, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff fails to allege that he suffered any physical injury. Defendant also asserts that interpreting the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") to limit only the recovery of compensatory and punitive damages but not nominal damages would "allow the purposes of the PLRA to be thwarted through crafty pleading." (Doc. No. 21, p. 5).

Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint that his arm was damaged as a result of Defendant's alleged excessive use of force. (Doc. No. 1, p. 6). Thus, Plaintiff claims to have received a physical injury as a result of Defendant's alleged actions. In addition, Plaintiff is not seeking damages for an emotional or mental injury. Rather, he is seeking compensation for an actual, physical injury. Accordingly, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e), by its very language, is not applicable to the facts alleged or the recovery sought in this case, as the Magistrate Judge so informed Defendant. The issue of whether Plaintiff suffered more than a de minimis physical injury is not presently before the Court.

Defendant'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 in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs monetary damages claims against Defendant in his official capacity and Plaintiff's request for a transfer are DISMISSED. Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant in his individual capacity remains pending.

SO ORDERED.