WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL TO FILE A MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY AND SIMULTANEOUSLY FILE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT?

(2) WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO TAKE NOTICE TO THAT THE DEFENDANTS' VIOLATED THEIR OWN ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE AND RULES PERTAINING TO THE PROPER PROCEDURE TO BE UNDERTAKEN?

(3) WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT MISUNDERSTOOD AND/OR MISINTERPRETED THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AND FACTS AS IT WAS IT RELATED TO THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE STATING THAT PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM WAS CLAIM, INSTEAD OF RECOGNIZING THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RULES AND DIRECTIVES THAT THE PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED IN HER RESPONSE TO THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SUPPORTED PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTION THAT THE DEFENDANT GRIEVANCE OFFICER WAS REQUIRED TO REVIEW AND SUBMIT PLAINTIFF'S MEDICAL GRIEVANCE THROUGH A SPECIFIC AVENUE OF REVIEW?

(4) WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER IN WHICH THE COURT CLAIMS THAT HE DID NOT BAR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT FROM SEEKING DISCOVERY AS TO EXHAUSTION, BUT MERELY PLAINTIFF MERIT DISCOVERY) WAS NOT FROM SEEKING FACTUALLY CORRECT OR AMBIGUOUS, OR AN OUTRIGHT AFFRONT TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT'S PRECEDENCE OF CELOTEX, 477 U.S. 317 AT 333 (1986)?

Whether the district court erred in denying the petitioner's motion to compel discovery