PageID 31 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION REGINALD J. HOWARD, Plaintiff, VS. Case No. 8: 16 - cv - 2849 - T - 27MAP DAVID GEE, et al, Defendants ORDER BEFORE THE COURT is the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, recommending that Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and his Complaint dismissed (Dkt. 4) . Plaintiff has responded to the Report and Recommendation (Dkts. 5, 6) and filed a motion for clarification (Dkt. 7) . Essentially, Plaintiff disagrees with the Magistrate Judge's findings and conclusions. And clarification is not warranted. Upon careful review, the Report and Recommendation (Dkt .) is adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects and is made a part of this order for all purposes. Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2) is DENIED. His motion for clarification (Dkt. 7) is likewise DENIED This case is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE the file. WISE DONE AND ORDERED this day of November, 2016. W heme JAMES D. WHITTEMORE United States District Judge Copy to: Plaintiff A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28U.S. C. $ 636 (b) (1) . Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection is made are accorded de novo review. 28U.S. C. $ 636 (b) (1) (C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (b) (3) . Objections must " pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with. " United States v. Schultz, 565 F. 3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009) . And the district court reviews the report and recommendation for clear error " even in the absence of objections. Macort v. Prem, Inc ., 208 Fed. App ' x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) .