United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION
AND DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE, ETC.
STARRETT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
cause is before the Court on Petition of Jonathan Edwards for
writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 , Respondent Jacquelyn Banks' Motion to
Dismiss , Report and Recommendation  of Magistrate
Judge Micharl T. Parker, Objection  to Report and
Recommendation filed by Jonathan Edwards, Response in
Opposition  to Objection filed by Respondent, and the
records and pleadings herein and the Court does hereby find
as follows to wit:
Jonathan Edwards is a post-conviction inmate currently in the
custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. ([11-3]
at 1.) On January 18, 2017, Petitioner pleaded guilty to
burglary of a dwelling in the Circuit Court of Marion County,
Mississippi. ([11-1] at 1.) He was sentenced as a habitual
offender pursuant to Mississippi Code § 99-19-81. ([8-1]
at 1.) Thereafter, on September 8, 2017, Petitioner filed a
“Motion for Post-Conviction Collateral Relief” in
the Circuit Court of Marion County where he challenged his
plea and sentence. ([11- 5] at 1.) His appeal of denial of
post-conviction relief is currently pending in the
Mississippi Court of Appeals.
December 19, 2017, proceeding in forma pauperis
(IFP), he filed the instant habeas petition. ( at 1.)
Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus on the following
grounds (as stated by Petitioner):
Ground One: Petitioner's plea bargain
was not knowingly and voluntarily entered.
Ground Two: Petitioner alleges that false
information was submitted by investigators.
Ground Three: Petitioner claims he was
illegally charged as a habitual offender pursuant to
Mississippi Code § 99-19-81.
Ground Four: Petitioner claims ineffective
assistance of ounsel.
( at 5-10.)
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss  on March 23, 2018,
arguing that the petition should be dismissed because
Petitioner did not first exhaust available state remedies.
Motion  at 2. Petitioner did not respond to the motion.
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 ...