ORDER

FREDERICK J. SCULLIN, Jr., Senior District Judge.

Currently before the Court are Magistrate Judge Dancks' May 9, 2016 Order and Report-Recommendation, see Dkt. No. 65, and Defendants' objections thereto, see Dkt. No. 66.

Plaintiff commenced this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants. He alleged, among other things, that Defendants had violated his constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.1 See generally Dkt. No. 1.

On November 27, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, see Dkt. No. 54, which Plaintiff opposed, see Dkt. No. 60. In her May 9, 2016 Order and Report-Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Dancks recommended that this Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Specifically, she recommend that this Court grant the motion with regard to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Khan, Hilton and Van Buren and Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claims related to imposition of restraints and the jumpsuit against Defendants Hilton and Van Buren and deny the motion with regard to Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claims related to Draft Directive No. 4939 against Defendants Hilton and Van Buren. See Dkt. No. 65 at 37. Finally, Magistrate Judge Dancks recommended that this Court reject Defendants Hilton and Van Buren's qualified immunity argument at this time. See id. at 35.

Where a party makes specific objections to portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the court conducts a de novo review of those recommendations. See Trombley v. Oneill, No. 8:11-CV-0569, 2011 WL 5881781, *2 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2011) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)). "However, a district court will ordinarily refuse to consider evidentiary material that could have been, but was not, presented to the magistrate judge in the first instance." Id. (footnote omitted). After conducting the appropriate review, a district court may decide to accept, reject, or modify those recommendations. See Linares v. Mahunik, No. 9:05-CV-625, 2009 WL 3165660, *10 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2009) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)).

The Court has conducted a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Dancks' Order and Report-Recommendation in light of Defendants' specific objections to her recommendations that the Court deny their motion for summary judgment with regard to Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claims relating to Draft Directive No. 4939 against Defendants Hilton and Van Buren and that the Court reject their argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity with regard to those claims. Having completed its review, the Court hereby

ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Dancks' May 9, 2016 Order and Report-Recommendation, see Dkt. No. 65, is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further

ORDERS that Defendants' motion for summary judgment, see Dkt. No. 54, is GRANTED with regard to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Khan, Hilton, and Van Buren; and the Court further

ORDERS that Defendants' motion for summary judgment, see Dkt. No. 54, is GRANTED with regard to Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claims against Defendants Hilton and Van Buren insofar as those claims relate to imposition of restraints and the jumpsuit; and the Court further

ORDERS that Defendants' motion for summary judgment, see Dkt. No. 54, is DENIED with regard to Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claims against Defendants Hilton and Van Buren insofar as those claims relate to Draft Directive No. 4939; and the Court further

ORDERS that this case is now trial ready and the Court will issue a trial order in due course;2 and the Court further

ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.