I. QUESTION NUMBER ONE

Is it acceptable for a federal district court judge to deny a
pro se prisoner's motion for a reasonable extension of time to file
objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation? In the
instant case, the district court judge prepared a Memorandum Opinion
adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation prior to
the expiration of time to file objections to the report and recommendation (when calculating that the fourteen day period did not begin
until the Petitioner was served a copy of the report and recommendation, and that the Petitioner's motion for an extension of time to
file objections invoked the "mailbox rule" as to date of filing).

After drafting the Memorandum Opinion adopting the magistrate's
report and recommendation, but before filing it on the docket, the
district court judge received the Petitioner's motion for an extension of time to file objections and incorrectly referred to it as
"untimely" when in fact it was timely, and denied the motion stating
as cause for the denial that the Petitioner "fails to indicate what
objections he would lodge, if given additional time, and he fails to
explain how additional time would alter the Court's conclusion[. ]"
(See Appendix B, pg. 3, footnote 4 - PageID #: 285). The Petitioner
is not required to set forth such arguments in a motion for an extension of time, as Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) only requires a party to
set forth "cause" as to why an extension of time is needed, which was
included in the motion. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals erroneously
denied Petitioner's motion for pauper status, which proffered this
issue in Section I. (See Appendix A).

II. QUESTION NUMBER TWO

Is a federal circuit court of appeals required to reverse a district court judge's decision adopting a magistrate's report and recommendation, when said report and recommendation found that the petitioner did not file a Traverse, when in fact the petitioner had filed
a timely Traverse? In the instant case, the Petitioner filed a Traverse in Nunez I and a Supplemental Traverse in Nunez II. The magistrate's report and recommendation filed 05/17/19 specifically states in
paragraph 1 that the "Petitioner did not file a Traverse in either
case'' and the district court judge adopted said report and recommendation without allowing the Petitioner to file objections. The Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals erroneously denied the Petitioner's motion
for pauper status, which proffered this issue in Section II.

III. QUESTION NUMBER THREE

Is it acceptable for a clerk of a federal circuit court of appeals to resolve a pro se prisoner's motion for pauper status in a
request to appeal a district court's rulings on a § 2254 petition
for habeas corpus relief? In the instant case, the Order filed 11/17/
19 denying the Petitioner's motion for pauper status is signed only
by a clerk instead of a magistrate, judge, or panel of judges of the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Additionally, the Order does not contain any information evidencing that a magistrate, judge, or panel of
judges was involved in the decision or in the writing of the decision.
(See Appendix A).

IV. QUESTION NUMBER FOUR

Is it acceptable for a federal circuit court of appeals to deny
a pro se prisoner's instanter motion for

Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the petitioner's claims