ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION, ETC.
KEITH STARRETT, District Judge.
This cause is before the Court on Motion for Preliminary Injunction or TRO  and Motion for Default Judgment  filed by Plaintiff and the Magistrate Judge's findings at the Omnibus Hearing held in this case. Further before this Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker and Plaintiff's Objections thereto, and the Court after considering same, the record herein, and applicable law, finds as follows, to-wit:
On February 6, 2013, Plaintiff La Tidtus Jones, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed his Complaint  pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the South Mississippi Correctional Institution ("SMCI") in Leakesville, Mississippi. Most of Plaintiff's claims arose while he was a post-conviction inmate at SMCI. In this action, Plaintiff has named twenty-seven defendants. Plaintiff's claims relate to his numerous disciplinary violations and defendants' alleged use of excessive force, confiscation of his property, and failure to protect him from other inmates.
The parties appeared and participated in an omnibus hearing before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge on November 25, 2013. Plaintiff appeared pro se and Honorable Tommy Goodwin appeared on behalf of Defendants Ronald King, Theresa Seabrook, Hubert Davis, George Dennis, Brenda Sims, Joseph Cooley, Eddia Coleman, Margaret Bingham, Malvin Smith, Nina Enlers, Laura Tilley, Debra Platt, William Dare, Denise Brewer, Chiquita Brown, Diane Massey, Latasha Clay, Adrian Keys, Regina Hancock, Christopher Epps, Phillip Yorke, Merrilyn Summerville, and E.L. Sparkman.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
When a party objects to a Report and Recommendation this Court is required to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also Longmire v. Gust, 921 F.2d 620, 623 (5th Cir. 1991) (Party is "entitled to a de novo review by an Article III Judge as to those issues to which an objection is made.") Such review means that this Court will examine the entire record and will make an independent assessment of the law. The Court is not required, however, to reiterate the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Koetting v. Thompson, 995 F.2d 37, 40 (5th Cir. 1993) nor need it consider objections that are frivolous, conclusive or general in nature. Battle v. United States Parole Commission, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1997). No factual objection is raised when a petitioner merely reurges arguments contained in the original petition. Edmond v. Collins, 8 F.3d 290, 293 (5th Cir. 1993).
III. PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS AND ANALYSIS
The specific recommendations of Magistrate Judge Parker are as follows:
1. That Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction or TRO  be denied; and
2. That Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment  be denied; and
3. That Plaintiff's claims against employees at Central Mississippi Correctional Facility, Defendants Merrilyn Summerville, Phillip Yorke, Gladys Kersh, Malvin Smith, Lt. Kingdom, and Eddia Coleman, be dismissed without prejudice; and
4. That Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Laura Tilley be dismissed with prejudice; and
5. That Plaintiff's ore tenus motion to dismiss be granted and Defendants Margaret Bingham, Christopher Epps, and E. L. ...