ORDER

MATTHEW W. BRANN, District Judge.

William D. Turner filed this amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by denying him adequate medical care with respect to his Hepatitis C treatment.1 Although Turner's amended complaint is somewhat addled, he alleges that he suffers from Hepatitis C which has resulted in severe cirrhosis.2 Defendants test Turner's blood every six months, but refuse to provide him with an antiviral drug that has a 99% cure rate—allegedly solely because of the cost of that medication.3

Defendants thereafter filed motions to dismiss alleging that Turner failed to state a claim for relief.4 Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., has issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants' motion.5 Magistrate Judge Saporito recommends dismissing Drs. Keldie and Cowan because Turner fails to allege any personal involvement on their part, and dismissing Correct Care Solutions because Turner does not allege the existence of any corporate policy or custom that may have caused his alleged harm.6 As to Turner's three treating physicians—Drs. Pandya, Iannuzzi, and Kuren— Magistrate Judge Saporito recommends dismissal because the failure to treat Turner's Hepatitis C with antiviral medication amounts to little more than a disagreement about the proper course of medical treatment, which does not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation.7

Magistrate Judge Saporito further recommends dismissing Defendants Kuras, Holly, and Selbi—all nurses or administrators—because Turner was under the treatment of a physician, and nurses or administrators generally will not be found to have acted with deliberate indifference when they follow the advice and treatment regime of a treating physician.8 Magistrate Judge Saporito also recommends dismissing all supervisory Defendants, as Turner fails to allege sufficient personal involvement for those individuals.9 Finally, Magistrate Judge Saporito recommends dismissing without prejudice all state law claims.10

Turner filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation.11 Although he fails to object to many of Magistrate Judge Saporito's recommendations, he does assert that the Hepatitis C treatment that he receives violates the Eighth Amendment.12 Where no objection is made to a report and recommendation, this Court will review the recommendation only for clear error.13 Conversely, "[i]f a party objects timely to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court must `make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.'"14 Regardless of whether timely objections are made, district courts may accept, reject, or modify—in whole or in part—the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations.15

Because Turner objects to the recommendation that he has failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim against Drs. Pandya, Iannuzzi, and Kuren, that portion of the recommendation is subject to de novo review.16 Turner does not, however, object to the remainder of Magistrate Judge Saporito's recommendation, and those portions are therefore reviewed only for clear error.17

After reviewing the record, the Court concludes that Turner has stated a viable claim against Pandya, Iannuzzi, and Kuren. As noted previously, Turner alleges that he suffers from Hepatitis C which had resulted in severe cirrhosis, and that Defendants test Turner's blood every six months, but refuse to provide him with antiviral medication due solely to the cost of the medication.18 In Abu-Jamal v. Kerestes, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently addressed a similar claim involving the treatment of Hepatitis C in Pennsylvania state prisons, and held:

In accordance with Abu-Jamal, Turner's allegation that he suffers from Hepatitis C and cirrhosis and should be provided with antiviral drugs, but has been denied such treatment for purely cost reasons, is sufficient to state a claim with regard to treating physicians Pandya, Iannuzzi, and Kuren. Similarly, Turner alleges that Correct Care Solutions implemented a policy that prevented antiviral treatment for inmates suffering from Hepatitis C due solely to the cost of the treatment20 and, thus, sufficiently alleges that Correct Care Solutions has implemented a policy or practice that violates his Eighth Amendment rights.21 Federal claims against Pandya, Iannuzzi, Kuren, and Correct Care Solutions shall therefore proceed. Because federal claims against those Defendants will proceed, the Court will likewise permit state law claims to proceed as to those Defendants only.

However, the Court finds no error—clear or otherwise—in the remainder of Magistrate Judge Saporito's thorough Report and Recommendation. The Court agrees that the remaining Defendants must be dismissed from this action for failure to state a claim and that Turner should not be granted leave to amend his federal claims against those Defendants. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: