ORDER

DANIEL P. JORDAN, III, District Judge.

This habeas corpus petition is before the Court for consideration of a June 30, 2011, Report and Recommendation [19] in which the Magistrate Judge recommended granting Respondent's Motion to Dismiss [11]. Plaintiff has filed Objections [21] and a Motion for Reconsideration [24] that tracks his Objections. Having fully considered the premises, the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted, that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss should be granted, and that Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration should be denied because there was nothing at that point to reconsider. All other motions are denied as moot.

The sole issue is whether Petitioner Grover Hairston timely filed. As the Magistrate Judge correctly noted, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) provides a one-year deadline that expired March 24, 2010, and Hairston did not file until January 18, 2011. The Report and Recommendation rejected Hairston's unsupported claim that head trauma in August 2007 created a basis for tolling, and Hairston's Objections make no reference to that recommendation. Hairston does, however, offer two arguments that the Court will address: (1) that his Petition was timely under the mailbox rule; and (2) that his "right to a discretionary review by the Appeal Court Mississippi should have been granted for an additional time." Pet.'s Obj. [24] at 1-2.

Starting with the mailbox rule, the date when prison officials receive pleadings from an inmate for delivery to the court is considered the time of filing for limitations purposes. Cooper v. Brookshire, 70 F.3d 377, 379 (5th Cir. 1995). According to Hairston, his Petition is timely because he delivered an Inmate Legal Assistance Program Request (ILAP) Form to prison officials on March 24, 2009—one year before the statute ran. But the ILAP Form he attached merely asked officials to notarize certain documents. See Pet.'s Obj. [21], Ex. A. It sought no assistance with filing his Petition and would not, therefore, trigger the mailbox rule.

Hairston's second contention expressly references § 2244(d)(2) and asks the Court to toll because the "Appeal Court Mississippi" should have granted additional time for "discretionary review." Pet.'s Obj. [24] at 1-2. According to the record, on July 9, 2010, Hairston filed an "Application for Leave to Proceed in the Trial court" which attached a motion for post-conviction relief. Res. Mot. to Dismiss [11], Ex. E. The Mississippi Supreme Court denied the application on August 11, 2010, on procedural grounds while also addressing the merits of certain claims. Id., Ex. F. Even if this application could be viewed as "properly filed," Hairston filed it after § 2244(d)'s statute of limitations expired. Thus, the application occurred too late to toll. See Gordon v. Dretke, 107 F. App'x 404, 406 (5th Cir. 2004) (refusing to toll where petitioner sought post-conviction relief "after the one-year period had expired.").1

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objections to the Report and Recommendation are hereby overruled.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball entered on June 30, 2011, is adopted as the finding of this Court. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss [11] is GRANTED. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration [24] is DENIED. All other motions are DENIED AS MOOT. A separate judgment will be entered pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.