United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
DANIEL P. JORDAN, III, District Judge.
This habeas corpus petition is before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball's Report and Recommendation , in which he recommends granting Respondent Earnest Lee's Motion to Dismiss  pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Petitioner London Williams, Jr., filed Objections , and Lee responded . For the reasons stated below, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation , and Lee's Motion  is granted.
I. Facts and Procedural History
The issue is whether Williams's Petition is time barred. On November 2, 2010, a Mississippi jury convicted Williams for incest. Williams v. State, 89 So.3d 676, 679 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012). That sentence was vacated, id. at 686, and on June 12, 2012, the trial court entered a new sentence. Williams neither appealed nor sought certiorari from the Mississippi Supreme Court. Resp't's Mot. to Dismiss  at 3. Instead, on July 9, 2013, Williams filed an application for permission to seek post-conviction relief. Id., Ex. E. The court denied his application on August 7, 2013, Resp't's Mot. to Dismiss  at 4, and Williams thereafter filed a number of additional motions seeking rehearing. The Mississippi Supreme Court ultimately closed the door on his efforts in an order it issued December 10, 2013. Attachment  at 6.
Williams filed his Petition  in this Court on March 12, 2014, and met a quick motion to dismiss. Following briefing, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation  recommending dismissal of the petition as untimely. Williams filed Objections , and the issues have now been thoroughly briefed.
The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") provides a one-year statute of limitations for petitions of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254:
(1) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of-
(A) the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review;
(B) the date on which the impediment to filing an application created by State action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed, if the applicant was prevented from filing by such State action;
(D) the date on which the factual predicate of the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.
(2) The time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). In this case, the state court's judgment became final on July 13, 2012, at the expiration of Williams's 30-day time period for appeal. See Roberts v. Cockrell, 319 F.3d 690, 694-95 (5th Cir. 2003); Miss. R. App. P. 4(a). Thus, unless the statute of limitations was tolled, ...