1 This case presents the question when there's no authority in the Federal Court's that countenances the preparation of the opinion by the attorney for either side, should've the Court of Appeals apprehended and applied the "clearly-erroneous" Rule 52 (a) standard when this type of error occurred ?

2 Whether an order from the Superior Court, that showed and proved that petitioner had exhausted his remedies in the lower court, contradict lawyers preliminary response, compelling the trial judge to provide the framework for a suppemental response from respondents, the court then adopting that response verbatim as their own, furtherly hindering petitioner from objecting to report & recommendation, by not sending it in time for petitioner to respond within the thirty days?

When there is no authority for the preparation of an opinion by the attorney for either side, should the Court of Appeals have applied the 'clearly-erroneous' Rule 52(a) standard?