MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

JAMES BROWNING, District Judge.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition, filed May 29, 2012 (Doc. 80)("PFRD"). In the PFRD, the Honorable Carmen E. Garza, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that the Court deny the Motion by the Plaintiff Pro Se Asking the Court to Verify Three (3) Defendants that Were Not Named in the Judge's Memorandum Opinion and Order, and the Plaintiff Is Asking the Court to Review Specific Exibits [sic] A-D then to Reconsider Parts of Its Memorandum Opinion and Order, filed March 9, 2012 (Doc. 63). See PFRD at 1. Judge Garza notified the parties that objections were due within fourteen days of service of the PFRD and that failure to file objections would preclude appellate review. See PFRD at 6. To date, no party has filed objections, and the time for doing so has passed.

The Court finds it necessary to clarify that Judge Garza incorrectly states that the Court dismissed all claims Plaintiff Justin James Hinzo has asserted against some of the Defendants, specifically the following Defendants: (i) New Mexico Department of Corrections; (ii) George Tapia; (iii) Wayne Gallegos; and (iv) Jerry Roark. See PFRD at 1-2. Hinzo has asserted claims under both 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, N.M.S.A.1978, §§ 41-4-1 to -30 ("NMTCA"), against all Defendants. Prisoner's Civil Rights Complaint ¶ 2, at 1, filed January 4, 2011 (Doc. 30)("Third Amended Complaint")("[T]he plaintiff is seeking the request [sic] relief at this point under `BOTH' the N.M.T.C.A. and § 1983 civil rights . . . ." (emphasis in original)). The Court, in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, filed February 22, 2012 (Doc. 59)("MOO"), addressed only the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims Hinzo has asserted. MOO at 1-3. The Court did not address any of Hinzo's claims under the NMTCA. Thus, given that the Court has not addressed the NMTCA claims asserted against these Defendants, Judge Garza incorrectly states that the Court dismissed these Defendants from the case. Thus, the Court does not adopt the PFRD to the extent that it states that the Court has dismissed these Defendants from the case. The Court otherwise adopts the PFRD given that there are no objections to it.

IT IS ORDERED that: (i) the Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition, filed May 29, 2012 (Doc. 80), are adopted in part; and (ii) the Motion by the Plaintiff Pro Se Asking the Court to Verify Three (3) Defendants that Were Not Named in the Judge's Memorandum Opinion and Order, and the Plaintiff Is Asking the Court to Review Specific Exibits [sic] A-D then to Reconsider Parts of Its Memorandum Opinion and Order, filed March 9, 2012 (Doc. 63), is denied.