With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ¶ 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)

A: holding that the statute of limitations is tolled during a malicious prosecution suit when a timely complaint is filed
B: holding that the limitations period is likewise not tolled during the pendency of a certiorari petition to the supreme court
C: 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
D: holding that tolling of the statute of limitations was not tolled during the pendency of a claim dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution
D.