MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STACI M. YANDLE, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier (Doc. 26) recommending that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 9) filed by Plaintiff be reserved until Stephen Duncan, the warden at Lawrence Correctional Center, is added as a defendant to Counts 1 and 2 in his official capacity for the sole purpose of carrying out an order for injunctive relief. No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); SDIL-LR 73.1(b). For the reasons stated below, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Frazier.

Plaintiff Tarius D. Ganaway, an inmate currently incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center ("Lawrence"), filed this lawsuit alleging deprivations on his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges he was placed in segregation and issued a urine and blood-stained mattress, but no blanket or sheets. Plaintiff further alleges prison staff ignored his requests for a replacement mattress. After he threatened to commit suicide, Plaintiff's personal property and prison jumpsuit were confiscated and Plaintiff was left to sleep on the soiled mattress in only his boxers. Plaintiff asserts that his back broke out in a rash as a result. Plaintiff seeks an order directing Defendants to provide him with sheets, blankets, access to health care, removal from segregation, transfer to another facility, and protection from all officers at Lawrence (see Doc. 9).

Where timely objections are filed, this Court must undertake a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); SDIL-LR 73.1(b); Harper v. City of Chicago Heights, 824 F.Supp. 786, 788 (N.D. Ill. 1993); see also Govas v. Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1992). Where neither timely nor specific objections to the Report and Recommendation are made, however, this Court need not conduct a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Instead, the Court should review the Report and Recommendation for clear error. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). A judge may then "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Court has carefully reviewed Judge Frazier's Report and Recommendation. Judge Frazier carefully laid out the documentary and testimonial evidence and thoroughly discussed his conclusion that Plaintiff has demonstrated that he is entitled to some of the relief he has requested. The Court fully agrees with Judge Frazier's findings, analysis and conclusions.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Frazier's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 26) in its entirety. Stephen Duncan, the warden at Lawrence Correctional Center, shall be added as a defendant, in his official capacity, to Counts 1 and 2 of Plaintiff's Complaint, for the sole purpose of carrying out an order for injunctive relief. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to prepare a notice and request for waiver of service of process for Stephen Duncan. Service shall be made in the manner outlined in the August 12, 2015, Order (Doc. 10). In addition, Plaintiff should be promptly evaluated by the prison's health care unit for the rash on his back by either a nurse practitioner who can prescribe medications or a medical doctor. He should also be promptly escorted to the prison's property office or other appropriate location for distribution of one sheet and one blanket (at a minimum).

IT IS SO ORDERED.