Filed: Jun. 02, 2004
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7828 IBIKUNLE SUNDAY FAYEMI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MURIEL K. OFFERMAN, in his individual capacity; RON STARLING, in his individual capacity; DAVID J. ADINOLF, in his individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-680) Submitted: April 19, 2004 Decided: June 2, 2004 Before
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7828 IBIKUNLE SUNDAY FAYEMI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MURIEL K. OFFERMAN, in his individual capacity; RON STARLING, in his individual capacity; DAVID J. ADINOLF, in his individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-680) Submitted: April 19, 2004 Decided: June 2, 2004 Before ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7828
IBIKUNLE SUNDAY FAYEMI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MURIEL K. OFFERMAN, in his individual
capacity; RON STARLING, in his individual
capacity; DAVID J. ADINOLF, in his individual
capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CA-03-680)
Submitted: April 19, 2004 Decided: June 2, 2004
Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ibikunle Sunday Fayemi, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ibikunle Sunday Fayemi appeals from a district court
judgment summarily dismissing as barred by the statute of
limitations his civil rights action against North Carolina
officials charging that money was seized in violation of his right
to due process. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We agree
with the district court that the action is barred by the statute of
limitations. Accordingly, we affirm.
We review a § 1915(e)(2)(B) dismissal de novo.
De’Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th Cir. 2003). There is
no statute of limitations provided in § 1983; rather, federal
courts apply the forum state’s “most analogous” statute of
limitations, generally the statute applicable to personal injury
actions. See Owens v. Okure,
488 U.S. 235 (1989); Wilson v.
Garcia,
471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985). However, the date the cause of
action accrues is determined under federal law. National Adver.
Co. v. City of Raleigh,
947 F.2d 1158, 1162 (4th Cir. 1991). In
North Carolina, the statute of limitations for actions under 42
U.S.C. 1983 (2000) is three years. Love v. Alamance County Bd. of
Educ.,
757 F.2d 1504, 1506 (4th Cir. 1985). Under federal law, a
cause of action accrues and the statute of limitations commences
“when the plaintiff possesses sufficient facts about the harm done
to him that reasonable inquiry will reveal his cause of action.”
- 2 -
See Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Corr., 64 F.3d 951, 955 (4th Cir.
1995).
We find the cause of action accrued at least by July 15,
1999, if not earlier, when Fayemi was informed by the district
court that the money was turned over to the North Carolina
Department of Revenue. Because Fayemi’s action was filed no
earlier than July 24, 2003, that action is barred by the three-year
statute of limitations.
Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -
