¶ 25. The parties cite several cases in which we have addressed tolling upon the filing of a complaint. Clark Sand Co., Inc. v. Kelly, 60 So.3d 149 (Miss.2011); Lincoln Elec. Co. v. McLemore, 54 So.3d 833, 839 (Miss.2010); Hill v. Ramsey, 3 So.3d 120, 123 (Miss.2009); Price v. Clark, 21 So.3d 509, 521 (Miss.2009); Owens v. Mai, 891 So.2d 220, 223 (Miss.2005); Watters v. Stripling, 675 So.2d 1242, 1244 (Miss. 1996), Erby v. Cox, 654 So.2d 503, 505 (Miss.1995); W.T. Raleigh Co. v. Barnes, 143 Miss. 597, 109 So. 8, 9 (1926); and Nevitt v. Bacon, 32 Miss. 212, 66 Am. Dec. 609 (1856). However, none of these cases addresses subsequent dismissal for want of prosecution. ¶ 26. Benny also cites persuasive precedent in which other courts have found no tolling of 9, 60-61 (Fla.Ct.App. 1968) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 30. Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d)(1)
holding that the limitations period is likewise not tolled during the pendency of a certiorari petition to the supreme court holding that tolling of the statute of limitations was not tolled during the pendency of a claim dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution holding that the statute of limitations is tolled during a malicious prosecution suit when a timely complaint is filed holding that the plain meaning of  2244d2 is that the statute of limitations is tolled during the pendency of any properly filed federal habeas corpus petition holding that the oneyear statute of limitations was not tolled during the pendency of petition for certiorari to the united states supreme court seeking review of denial of state postconviction relief