
    Thaddeus Michael LOCKHART, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nathaniel QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 07-20675
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 7, 2009.
    Thaddeus Michael Lockhart, Huntsville, TX, pro se.
    Carole Susanne Callaghan, Office of the Attorney General Postconviction Litigation Division, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Ap-pellee.
    
      Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Thaddeus Michael Lockhart, Texas prisoner #265571, appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application as time barred. Lockhart’s application challenges the denial of credit for time that he served on parole following his conviction for aggravated robbery. We previously granted a certificate of appealability (COA) as to whether Lockhart’s § 2254 application was timely filed.

Lockhart argues that the limitations period should have been tolled pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(B) during the pen-dency of the four time credit disputes that he filed pursuant to Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 501.0081. He contends that the requirement that he file the time credit disputes prior to bringing a state application for postconviction relief constitutes a state impediment to filing. He argues no other basis for tolling the limitations period for the time credit disputes. Lockhart’s argument is without merit because he has not argued or shown that the required filing of a time credit dispute constitutes state action in violation of the Constitution or federal law. See Egerton v. Cockrell, 334 F.3d 433, 436 (5th Cir.2003).

Accordingly, although we find that the district court erred in its time calculations, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Lockhart’s § 2254 application as time barred on the basis that he has not shown that he was entitled to tolling under § 2244(d)(1)(B) during the pendency of his time credit disputes.

Lockhart’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. His motion to expedite the appeal is DISMISSED as moot. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     