Whether the Court of Appeals exceeded its authority to affirm a judgment as time barred

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED This case presents two issues: Whether the Court of Appeals exceeded its authority, on its own initiative to affirm a judgment as time barred, once the District Court's final decision has sua sponte answered the complaint without adjudicating the statute of limitations defense on the merits. see 28 U.S.C. 1291, Fed.R.Civ. P. 8(c)(1); see, Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (2006) ("Of course, before acting on its own initiative, a court must accord the parties fair notice and an opportunity to present their position") see e.g. McMillian v. Jarvis, 332 F.3d 244,250 (4th Cir. 2003). Kad of Se What is the appropriate remedy for a McLaughlin violation ? See Powell v. Nevada, 511 U.S. 79 (1994) ( The Court would #2) ~~ express no opinion on the issue as to (a) the appropriate remedy for delay in determining proable cause ); United States v. Fullerton, 187 F.3d 587,592, (6th Cir. 1999) ( Fullerton may follow the lead of numerous other victims of a McLaughlin violation and file a Bivens Claim" ); Luck v. Rovenstine, 168 F.3d 323,326 (7th Gir. 1998); Wayland v. City of Springdale, 933 F.3d 668 (8th Cir. 1991); City of Garden City, 991 F.2d 1473,1481 (9th Cir. 1992); Wilson v, Montana, 715 F.3d 847,854 (10th Cir. 2013); United States v. Pabon, 871 £.3d 164,179 (2nd Cir. 2017), and conflicted Harriot—y. toy aizenhofer, 743 Fed. App. 540 (4th Cir. 20118 )(Statate of Wrekation) 5 Ruel v Nevada, Fit GS. 19 C1144) C NeLaushlin 1 retroactively. dprly): II