Jonathan Williams v. Warden Angelena Johnson and Burl Cain

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI EASTERN DIVISION

JONATHAN WILLIAMS PETITIONER v. CAUSE NO. 2:25-cv-163-LG-RPM WARDEN ANGELENA JOHNSON AND BURL CAIN RESPONDENTS ORDER ADOPTING [22] REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The magistrate judge assigned to this habeas matter recommends granting the [12] Motion to Dismiss filed by Respondents Warden Angelena Johnson and Burl Cain. The Court construes Williams’ [23] Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment as an Objection, and the Court determines it should be overruled. The Court finds that the [22] Report and Recommendation should be adopted. “Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings objected to.” Battle v. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (citation modified), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996). If a party objects to a report and recommendation, then the 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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 675 (1980). “Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be

considered by the district court.” Battle, 834 F.2d at 421 (citation omitted). A district court need not “reiterate the findings of the magistrate judge” in its determination. Hernandez v. Livingston, 495 F. App’x 414, 416 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (citing Koetting v. Thompson, 995 F.2d 37, 40 (5th Cir. 1993)). “Issues raised for the first time in objections to the report of a magistrate judge are not properly before the district judge.” Finley v. Johnson, 243 F.3d 215, 219 n.3 (5th

Cir. 2001) (citation modified). Most of Williams’ objections focus on the frivolous arguments regarding the recalled indictment, see Battle, 834 F.2d at 421, or otherwise focus on raising new issues, and such issues are “not properly before the district judge[,]” see Finley, 243 F.3d at 219 n.3 (citation omitted). The magistrate judge thoroughly considered Williams’ arguments in the Report and Recommendation, and so the Court need not reiterate his findings. See Hernandez, 495 F. App’x at 416 (citing Koetting, 995 F.2d

at 40). The Court, having conducted a de novo review of the record, finds that the [22] Report and Recommendation is well-reasoned and that the magistrate judge appropriately applied the law to the facts in this case. See Raddatz, 447 U.S. at 675. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is time barred, and no equitable tolling applies. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the [22] Report

and Recommendation entered by the United States Magistrate Judge on May 26, 2026, is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. Petitioner Williams’ [23] Objection is OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner Williams’ [1] Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED with prejudice. The Court will enter a separate final judgment and certificate of appealability. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 28th day of August, 2026. Louis Guirola, Jr. s/ LOUIS GUIROLA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE