NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0263n.06 F iled: April 7, 2009 No. 08-1189 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
WI L L I AM F. D EL ANEY, P laintif f-App ellant,

v. DENNI S RARI DEN; WESL E Y EVANS; J ANE HA RRI S; MA TT HE W B AU SERMA N; GA RY EL F O R D ; JO H N A

N D / O R JA N E D O E , P O L I CE OFF I CER; R I CK AND/OR ROB I N ROWE, GRAND BL ANC TOWNSHI P O F F I CI A L , AGENT EMPL OYEE AN D/OR REPR ESENTATIVE; AND, TH E CH AR TE R TO WNSH I P OF GR AN D B L AN C, De fend ant s- App e lle e s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

THE EA STE RN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN
O P I N I O N

BEF OR E: NO RRIS, BA TC HELD ER and R OG ER S, C ir c uitJudg e s. ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judge. Cleanliness, it is sa i d , i s n ex t to godliness. In the fede r a l c o u rts , a s th is a

p p e a l d e mo n s tr a te s , th e s a me mi g h t b e s a id o f ti me li n e s s . I nth is a

p p e al P l ai n t i ff W illiam Delaney (“D elane y ”) que stions the propriety of two of the district c ourt’s deter minations reg ardinghis 42 U.S.C. § 1983 s uit alleg in g wr ong ful arr est and malicious prosec ution. First, the district court gra nted a motion made by defe ndants who are pol ice of fice rs in G ra nd B lanc To wn sh ip, and Gr and B lanc To wn sh ip its e lf , f or summa ry jud g me nt o n a ll c la ims , a motion wh i ch we nt unopposed by Delane y . Second, the district cour t denied De laney ’sNo. 08-1189

Delaney v. Rariden

- 2 - su bs e qu e nt– and

un tim e ly –r e qu e st f

or le a ve to a llo w h im t o f

ile a memo rand um in o pp os iti on to defe ndants’ mot ion for summ ary judgme nt. Delane y ’s not ice of appea l reg ardingthe first dec ision was untimely , and we aff irm the district court on the se cond. Untimeliness is a problem that has plag ued Delane y throug hout this case . The district cour t g ra nte d d e fe nd ant’ s mo tio n for summa ry jud g me nt on Oc tob e r 26, 20 07
. F e de ra l Rule of Ap pe llate Procedur e 4 re quired De laney to file his notice of a

ppeal within th i rty

day s. He fa iled to do so, ins te a d f ili nghis no tic e on Janu ary 21 , 20 08 , e ig ht we e ks late
. An d D e lane y ’s re qu e st f or le a ve to file a me morandum, filed five wee ks afte r the entry of the summary judgme nt or der, did not extend the filing deadline f

or the notice of a

ppeal. Appe llate Rule 4(a) (4)( A) c ontemplates seve ral motions which may

do just that, but Delaney ’s motion was n o t o n e of those. All of whic h is to say that Delane y ’s not ice of appea l was, by a wide marg in, untimely , and so we do not conside r this aspec t of his a pp e a l. We are left, then, with the que stion of whether the district court prope rly denied De laney ’s
re qu e st f or le ave to f ile a me mor and

um i n o pp os iti on to de fe nd ant’ s mot ion fo r summa ry jud g me nt. We have no trouble concluding that it did. This r equest, too, was untimely filed, a f ull five wee ks after the district cour

t had ruled on the summary judgme nt motion. Delaney tells us only

that

“ e xtra or din ary

c ir c ums tanc e s” pr e ve nte d h im f ro m ti me ly

fi lin g his br ie f in oppo sit ion . N ot o nly does he f ail to cite to any

leg al support for his posit ion, but he fails in even the more modest aim of marshalingsome fac tual support for it, by neg lecting to spell out what, ex actly , these “ extraordinary circ umstances” wer e. We theref ore de em this argument waived. See M oore v. Lafaye tte Ins. Co. , 458 F.3d 416, 448 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (“[The cour t s of appe als] are not self- direc ted boar ds of leg alNo. 08-1189

Delaney v. Rariden

- 3 - inquiry and re sear ch, but essentially arbiter s of leg al questions prese nt and ar g ued by the par ties.”); Indec k Energy Serv

s., Inc. v . Consumers Energy Co. , 250 F.3d 972, 979 ( 6th Cir. 2000) (issues adver ted to in a per functory

manner , unacc ompanied by some eff ort at deve loped ar g umentation, are deeme d waived) . Delane y prese nts no other ar g uments for reve rs i n g t he dec ision of the district
c ourt
. De lane y ’s a

pp e a l is dism iss e d to the extent that it re l at es t o t h e district cour t’s g rant of summary judgme nt ag ainst him, and the district court’s de cision denying Delane y ’s reque st f or leave to f ile a me mor and

um i n o pp os iti on

is aff irm ed
.