1. Whether magistrate judges exceed the scope of their statutory authority by issuing orders which have the practical effect of granting or refusing injunctive relief.

2. Whether the panel's decision to dismiss Zinman's appeal, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction conflicts with this Court's binding precedent set forth in Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530(1962), as well as several decisions which are also binding upon the Eleventh Circuit, including United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2009), U.S. v. Desir, 257 F. 3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2001), U.S. v. Maragh, 189F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 1999), andNettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982).

3. Whether the panel's determination that it lacks jurisdiction to review the July 14th order conflicts with the binding precedent set forth by this Court in Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

4. Whether the panel's determination that it lacks jurisdiction to review the July 14th order conflicts with the binding precedent set forth by this Court in Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 84 (1981) and Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. Bodinger, 348 U.S. 176, 181 (1955).

5. Whether and to what extent litigants must be guaranteed access to courts, especially those challenging mask mandates upon religious grounds, during the so-called "COVID-19 pandemic."

6. Whether and to what extent litigants are entitled to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Whether magistrate judges exceed their statutory authority by issuing orders with the practical effect of granting or refusing injunctive relief