United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION
AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE ETC.
STARRETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
cause is before the Court on Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , filed by
Eric De'Jaun Jones (Petitioner) and a “Motion to
Stay Conviction and Sentence Enforcement of Respondents
pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 62 and for F.R.C.P. Rule 57
Declaratory Judgment”.  and on Motion to Dismiss
 filed by Respondents. The Court has considered the Report
and Recommendation  of Magistrate Judge John C. Gargiulo
along with the above described documents and the record
herein and finds that the Motion to Dismiss  should be
Granted and the Motion to Stay Conviction and Sentence
Enforcement of Respondents pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 62 and
F.R.C.P. Rule 57 Declaratory Judgment  be Denied and that
Jones' 28 U.S.C. §2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus be Dismissed with Prejudice as procedurally defaulted.
December 18, 2015, Jones was convicted of simple assault in
the Municipal Court of Prentiss, Mississippi (8-1). He was
ordered to pay a fine of $175.00 and assessments of $125.25
within 30 days of the Order and was further sentenced to
serve 60 days in the Jefferson Davis County jail which was
suspended upon compliance and with 6 months of non-reporting
Probation. Jones did not appeal his conviction or sentence.
In the instant Petition Jones challenges his conviction and
sentence for simple assault. Judge Gargiulo gleaned from his
Petition the five grounds applicable to the simple assault
conviction and they are as follows:
Ground One: Jones was arrested without a warrant, and the
affidavit was Improperly amended.
Ground Two: Jones was improperly convicted and sentenced
because Jones' mother is guilty of the simple assault,
the judge was biased, and the judge used handwritten notes
rather than a court reporter.
Ground Three: Law enforcement is suppressing or refusing to
investigate Exculpatory and mitigating evidence.
Ground Four: Unknown officials are “stagging”
encounters to provoke Jones. These officials may be involved
in in the Ku Klux Klan and Conspiring to cause harm to Jones.
Ground Five: Jones was denied an opportunity to appeal
because the Circuit Clerk required him to pay a $300.00
filing fee, which he could not afford.
filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation 
which the Court is also considering.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
party objects to a Report and Recommendation this Court is
required to “make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings
or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also Longmire v. Gust,
921 F.2d 620, 623 (5th Cir. 1991) (Party is
“entitled to a de novo review by an Article
III Judge as to those issues to which an objection is
made.”) Such review means that this Court will examine
the entire record and will make an independent assessment of
the law. The Court is not required, however, to reiterate the
findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge.
Koetting v. Thompson, 995 F.2d 37, 40
(5th Cir. 1993) nor need it consider objections
that are frivolous, conclusive or general in nature.
Battle v. United States Parole Commission, 834 F.2d
419, 421 (5th Cir. 1997). No factual objection is
raised when a petitioner merely reurges arguments contained
in the original petition. Edmond v. Collins, 8 F.3d
290, 293 (5th Cir. 1993).
PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS AND ANALYSIS
Objection Petitioner rambles through a number of issues
including failure to train, arrest without a warrant, trial
de novo, in forma pauperis status and other issues
that could not be read by the Court. However, he does not
address the issue of procedural default. He also does not
address the fact that he is no longer in custody and fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. As to his
simple assault conviction, his claims are procedurally
defaulted because he did not appeal his conviction and a
return to the State Court would be fruitless since he has
procedurally defaulted his claims for purposes of Federal
Habeas review. The Court finds that he does not meet ...