UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:23-cv-00353 Jay Williams, Plaintiff, V. Unknown, Defendant.

ORDER Plaintiff Jay Williams, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled and numbered civil rights lawsuit pursuant to

. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell, who issued a report and recommendation (Doc. 3) con- cluding that plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed with prejudice for purposes of 7” forma pauperis proceedings pursuant to

(g). Plaintiff filed objections. Doc. 4. The court reviews the objected-to portions of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3);

(b)(1). In his objections, plaintiff requests the disqualification and removal of Judge Mitchell from his case. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings, con- clusions, or recommendations 7n the report to which he objects and the basis for his objections. See

(b)(1)(C); Wettles ». Wainwright,

, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc). Plain- tiff’s objections are not specific to the report. Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report, and being satis- fied that it contains no clear error, the court accepts its findings and recommendation. Doc. 3. For the reasons stated in the report, plain- tiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice for purposes of 7 forma pauperis proceedings pursuant to

(g). Plaintiff may resume his lawsuit if he pays the entire filing fee of $402 within thirty days after the entry of the final judgment.

So ordered by the court on December 19, 2023.

ji CAMPBELL BARKER United States District Judge

-2-