42 USC § 1983 action by a former employee alleging procedural due process violations; The statute of limitations; MCL 600.5805(2); Accrual; The “discovery rule”; Applicability of “equitable tolling”; Whether plaintiff stated a procedural due process claim; Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC)

[This appeal was from the WD-MI.] The court held that because plaintiff-Bozzo’s § 1983 claim was “untimely on its face,” and he could not establish an exception to the statute of limitations, the district court properly dismissed his procedural due process claim. Bozzo, who worked for the MDOC as a prison guard, was discharged for comments to a co-worker. Years after an arbitrator ruled for the MDOC, he sued in federal court alleging various constitutional violations. The district court dismissed his case without prejudice when he failed to respond to a motion to dismiss. He then refiled, and the district court granted defendants-MDOC officials summary judgment based on the statute of limitations and his forfeiture of all his constitutional claims except due process, for which he had failed to state a claim. On appeal, he only pursued his procedural due process claim and argued his case should not have been dismissed based on the statute of limitations. The court explained that § 1983 claims borrow the applicable state law limitations period for personal-injury actions. Under Michigan law, this is three years. The issue here was the date on which his claim accrued. The accrual issue is covered by federal law, and the court has held that “a claim accrues when a ‘plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of his action.’” It noted an “apparent contradiction between the Supreme Court’s occurrence-based rule and our discovery rule.” But as the “parties assume the discovery rule applies notwithstanding Supreme Court precedent,” it took the case as presented to it. Considering the elements of a due process claim, it held that his alleged deprivation occurred when he was “formally terminated” via correspondence on 7/31/19. Bozzo argued that he had not “fully realized” his injury until the ruling on his arbitration proceeding, in 2021. The court rejected this reasoning, noting that he “had already been ‘deprived’ of his job when he attended his arbitration hearing[,]” and that the allegations he made about the arbitration proceeding amounted “to ‘dissatisf[action] with the result,’ not the process.” Given that “knowledge of procedural defects is what counts, the discovery rule” did not change the court’s conclusion as to the accrual date of his claim. It also rejected his equitable tolling argument, noting that this was “unavailable under the Michigan limitations provision at issue here.” Lastly, it held that even if his claim had been timely, he received “everything due process requires before termination” and he also “enjoyed the minimal procedures needed for a post-termination hearing.” Affirmed.