1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

JAY WILLIAMS, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

RACHEL WATTS, 

 Defendant. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:23-cv-220-JDK-JDL 

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Jay Williams filed this pro se civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. 

Love for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition. 

On May 12, 2023, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that the Court 

dismiss this case without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Docket 

No. 3. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that dismissal of this case should 

count as a qualifying dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Adepegba v. Hammons, 

103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996), abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. 

Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 534–41 (2015). No objections to the Report were filed by the 

applicable deadline. Plaintiff did, however, file a handwritten coupon as an ostensible 

attempt to pay the filing fee in this matter. Docket No. 4. 

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de 

novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and 

Case 6:23-cv-00220-JDK-JDL Document 5 Filed 06/28/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 20
2 

Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court 

examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. 

Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), 

superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to 

file objections from ten to fourteen days). 

Here, Plaintiff did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore 

reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and 

reviews the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See 

United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 

918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the 

standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). 

Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, 

the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to 

law. The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s duplicative, frivolous, and malicious filings are 

an abuse of the judicial process. Plaintiff has filed numerous cases with the same 

deficiencies. See, e.g., Case Nos. 6:23-cv-256, 6:23-cv-257, 6:23-cv-258, 6:23-cv-260, 

6:23-cv-263, 6:23-cv-298, 6:23-cv-300, and 6:23-cv-301. Moreover, as Plaintiff has 

been made aware, filing a handwritten “coupon” is not an acceptable form of payment 

and does not impact the Court’s screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. See Case 

No. 6:23-cv-258, Docket No. 3. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of 

the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 3) as the findings of this Court. It 

Case 6:23-cv-00220-JDK-JDL Document 5 Filed 06/28/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 21
3 

is therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The dismissal of this case under § 1915A(b)(1) as frivolous 

counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba, 103 F.3d at 388. Plaintiff 

is warned that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be permitted to proceed in 

forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained 

in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 

§ 1915(g). 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28th June, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00220-JDK-JDL Document 5 Filed 06/28/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 22