United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER'S OBJECTION ,
ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
, GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS , AND
DISMISSING THE PETITION  WITH PREJUDICE
SULEYMAN OZERDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THE COURT is Petitioner Donovan Willingham's Objection
 to United States Magistrate Judge Michael T.
Parker's Report and Recommendation  entered on April
16, 2018, and Respondent State of Mississippi's Motion
 to Dismiss. After consideration of the proposed findings
of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Report and
Recommendation, the record, and relevant legal authority, the
Court finds that Petitioner's Objection should be
overruled, the Report and Recommendation should be adopted as
the finding of this Court, Respondent's Motion should be
granted, and the Petition should be dismissed with prejudice.
12, 2017, Donovan Willingham (“Petitioner”) filed
a Petition  Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas
Corpus by a Person in State Custody, alleging that the
sentence imposed in state court by his October 17, 2011,
conviction had “expired, ” that his
“probation, parole, or conditional release was
unlawfully revoked, ” and that he is currently being
held “unlawfully” in violation of his
constitutional rights. Petition  at 2, 5. The State of
Mississippi filed a Motion  to Dismiss on December 13,
2017, asserting that Petitioner's claims were barred by
the one-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(d), which requires that a party seeking federal
habeas relief must file his petition within one year from
“the date on which the judgment became final by the
conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for
seeking such review.” Mot. to Dismiss  at 1-11
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A)).
April 16, 2018, the Magistrate Judge entered his Report and
Recommendation , recommending that the State of
Mississippi's Motion  to Dismiss be granted and that
Petitioner's Petition  be dismissed with prejudice, on
grounds that Petitioner's claims are barred by the
one-year limitations period found in 28 U.S.C. §
2244(d)(1)(A). The Magistrate Judge determined that
[b]ased upon the one-year limitations period found in 28
U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A), Petitioner was required to file
his federal petition challenging his original conviction by
July 25, 2013, or file a petition challenging his revocation
by March 21, 2016. He met neither deadline. Petitioner filed
this petition on May 24, 2017, past both deadlines and he is
not entitled to tolling. Accordingly, he cannot avoid the
statutory bar of Section 2244(d).
R&R  at 5-6.
filed an Objection  to the Report and Recommendation on
April 30, 2018. The Objection contains various assertions of
fact and law and requests three things: (1) to subpoena
Hancock County District Attorney Joel Smith; (2) to obtain
the transcripts from the court reporter of Hancock County;
and (3) to find out where Petitioner completed the RID
program. Obj.  at 1-3. Petitioner also seeks legal
assistance and proffers that the prison is unsanitary, is
infected with rats and mold, is short of food, and has been
on lockdown for weeks, depriving him of the ability to take a
Standard of Review
Because Plaintiff has objected to the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation, this Court is required to make a
de novo determination of ‘“those portions of the
[magistrate's] report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.'”
Funeral Consumers All. Inc. v. Serv. Corp Int'l,
695 F.3d 330, 347 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Hernandez v.
Estelle, 711 F.2d 619, 620 (5th Cir. 1983) (quoting 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)); see also Longmire v.
Guste, 921 F.2d 620, 623 (5th Cir. 1991) (stating that
parties are only entitled to a de novo review by an Article
III judge as to those issues to which an objection is made).
is not required, however, to make new findings of fact
independent of those made by a magistrate. Warren v.
Miles, 230 F.3d 688, 694-95 (5th Cir. 2000). Nor is a
court required to reiterate the findings and conclusions of a
magistrate judge. Koetting v. Thompson, 995 F.2d 37,
40 (5th Cir. 1993). Also, a court need not consider
objections which are frivolous, conclusive, or general in
nature. Battle v. United States Parole Comm'n,
834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987); see also Nettles v.
Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n. 8 (5th Cir.1982)
(“Parties filing objections must specifically identify
those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general
objections need not be considered by the district
Objection contains various assertions of fact, but does
nothing to controvert the specific findings of fact and law
contained within the Report and Recommendation, which pertain
to the expiration of the statute of limitations. See
Obj.  at 1-3. Petitioner does not object to the
Magistrate Judge's conclusions that his deadline to file
a § 2254 petition on his conviction was July 25, 2013,
and that the deadline to file a § 2254 petition on his
revocation ran on ...