ORDER

W. KEITH WATKINS, Chief District Judge.

Before the court is the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition be dismissed as time-barred. (Doc. # 24.) Petitioner has filed objections. (Doc. # 25.) Having conducted an independent and de novo review of the Recommendation, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and having construed Petitioner's objection with the leniency afforded pro se litigants, the court concludes the objection is due to be overruled.

Petitioner's conviction became final on September 11, 2013, and the statute of limitations to file a § 2254 petition expired on September 11, 2014. Petitioner did not file his § 2254 petition until January 26, 2016. As correctly detailed in the Recommendation, Petitioner has not shown that he is entitled to statutory or equitable tolling. Nor has he made a colorable claim of actual innocence.

Petitioner's objections fail to address or undermine the Recommendation's findings regarding the statute of limitations, statutory and equitable tolling, and actual innocence. Instead, Petitioner mainly reargues the merits of some of his time-barred substantive claims. Petitioner's objections, therefore, are due to be overruled.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. Petitioner's objections to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (Doc. # 25) are OVERRULED;

2. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 24) is ADOPTED;

3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus under § 2254 is DENIED; and

4. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice because it was filed after the expiration of the one-year limitation period in § 2254(d).