UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:23-cv-00237 James Odom, Plaintiff, V. Kim Sung, Defendant.

ORDER Plaintiff James Odom, an inmate proceeding pro se and 7x forma pauperis, filed this civil-rights lawsuit pursuant to

. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love pursuant to

(b). Doc. 3. On May 10, 2023, the magistrate judge issued a report recom- mending that plaintiff’s lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice for fail- ure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2). Doc. 5. A copy of the report was mailed to plaintiff, who did not file written objections. An intervening letter received from plaintiff (Doc. 7) does not constitute an objection; it is not styled as an objection, and it does not mention the report, identify any errors in it, or even pertain to plaintiff’s underlying claim against his defense counsel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (requiring “specific written objections”); Vettles v. Wain- wright,

, 410 n. 8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc) (“Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the dis- trict court.”), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,

(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). When no party objects to the magistrate judge’s report and rec- ommendation, the court reviews it only for clear error. See Douglass vy. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,

(Sth Cir. 1996). Hav- ing reviewed the magistrate judge’s report and being satisfied that it

contains no clear error, the court accepts its findings and recommen- dation. The court dismisses this case with prejudice. So ordered by the court on June 23, 2023.

j/ CAMPBELL BARKER United States District Judge

-2-