U.S. magistrate judge's prior participation in settlement discussions in the case did not, by itself, require his recusal under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455(b)(1) for "personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding." Magistrate judge does, however, recuse himself because a settlement was previously reached, and the current litigation required, among other things, resolution of a dispute between the parties as to the meaning of the settlement agreement, for which it was not beyond the realm of possibility that the magistrate judge could be called as a witness by either side and he was also concerned about the possible damage to the "appearance of impartiality." The case concerned a pre-operative transsexual prisoner's claim against the federal Bureau of Prisons seeking estrogen therapy. Black v. Kendig, 227 F. Supp. 2d 153 (D.D.C. 2002). [N/R]