Case Name: Basil W. AKBAR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PADULA, Warden; Henry McMaster; Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-10
Citations: 250 F. App'x 569
Docket Number: No. 07-6078
Parties: Basil W. AKBAR, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Anthony J. PADULA, Warden; Henry McMaster; Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 250
Pages: 569–570

Head Matter:
Basil W. AKBAR, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Anthony J. PADULA, Warden; Henry McMaster; Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 07-6078.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 26, 2007.
Decided: Oct. 10, 2007.
Basil Akbar, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Derrick K. McFarland, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Basil Akbar appeals the district court's orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and denying reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. Akbar v. Padula, No. 9:06-cv-00907-DCN, 2006 WL 3743849 (D.S.C. Dec. 18, 2006; Jan. 16, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
We agree with Appellees that Akbar's second post-conviction motion filed on June 28, 1996 tolled the one-year limitations period until March 14, 2001. The district court's contrary conclusion was error. Nonetheless, Akbar's § 2254 petition is still untimely.