seek to advance in this lawsuit. The Court could not square a different result with fundamental requirement that a 60-day notice must “be sufficiently specific to inform the alleged violator about what it is doing wrong, so that it will know what corrective actions will avert a lawsuit.” Atlantic States, 116 F.3d at 819. Not having given Defendants notice of the violations alleged in this lawsuit, but only for violations that had already been addressed by the end of the 60-day notice period and that were therefore “wholly past” by the time Plaintiffs would have been permitted to sue for properly noticed ongoing violations, Plaintiffs’ Clean Water Act claims must be dismissed. See, e.g., Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Gaston Copper Recycling Corp., 629 F.3d 387, 399-403 (4th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); ONRC Action v. Columbia Plywood, Inc., 286
holding rookerfeldman inapplicable where the district court could and did find that the plaintiffs constitutional claims had merit without also finding that the state court erred holding that the district court erred in finding violations that were not alleged specifically in the plaintiffs notice letter and no penalties could be imposed for those violations holding that the trial court improperly relied on evidence of new violations in determining the appropriate adult sentence to be imposed for the original offenses since defendant denied committing the new violations he could not be penalized merely for being arrested and charged holding that although that the district court erred in finding that plaintiffs lacked standing the appellate court may nonetheless proceed to consider the district courts determination that plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted holding that alleged violations of a state statute did not give rise to federal constitutional claims