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). Kn4JSu, What is the appropriate remedy for a McLaughlin violation ? See Powell v. Nevada, 511 U.S. 79 (1994) ( The Court would express no opinion on the issue as to (a) the appropriate remedy for delay in determining proable cause ); flnited 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 Rivens Claim" ); T.uc.k v. Rovenstin, 168 F.3d 323,326 (7th Cit. 1998); ThylRnc1 v. City of .cpringc1.il., 933 F.3d 668 (8th Cir. 1991); City of Carden City, 991 F.2d 1473,1481 (9th Cir. 1992); Wilson Montana,, 715 F.3d 847,854 (10th Cir. 2013); United States v. Pabon, 871 f.3d 164,179 (2nd Cit. 2017), and conflicted J-1rriof v. aizenhofer, 743 Fed. App. 540 (4th Cir. 2018)(.SakA\ Re-Va8a 5711 "-5-11 094)( kLa 3t 15 6P'?kY)-

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