ORDER

MAURICE PAUL, Senior District Judge

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 24, Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, recommending that this action be dismissed with prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Additionally, the Magistrate recommended that all pending motions be denied as moot. The Magistrate Judge filed the Report and Recommendation on Thursday, February 16, 2006. The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo review of those portions to which an objection has been made.

In his objections, Plaintiff contends that the 3/4" disparity in the length of his legs constitutes a "serious medical need." However, the court fully agrees with the Magistrate Judge that this condition does not rise to such a level. Regardless, Plaintiff fails to present any evidence indicating that Defendant Nguyen's chosen path of treatment constituted "an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain," or that Dr. Nguyen acted with deliberate indifference. It appears that Plaintiff merely disagrees with the prescribed treatment. This alone, without any evidence that this treatment was "grossly incompetent, inadequate, or excessive as to shock the conscience or to be intolerable to fundamental fairness," is insufficient grounds to support Plaintiff's claim. See Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495, 1505 (11th Cir. 1991) (quoting Rogers v. Evans, 792 F.2d 1052, 1058 (11th Cir. 1986)). Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Plaintiff's amended complaint, Doc. 19, is dismissed with prejudice.

3. All pending motions are denied as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED.