Question No. 1
Should this Court grant Certiorari where Petitioner Good was denied notice
when, despite an order of Stay for further discovery and an order that
notice would be given for a newly set response deadline, a newly assigned
magistrate issued a report and recommendation for dismissal, following
which the district court denied Petitioner's objections brought under the
higher burden of Fed. R. Civ. P 72?

Question No. 2
Should this Court grant Certiorari vhere the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
departed from the accepted and unusual course of judicial proceedings,
contrary to this Court's precedent in University of Tennessee v Elliot, 478
U.S. 788, 799, 106 S. Ct 3220, 92 L. Ed 22635 (1986), granting preclusive
effect to the unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations of Respondent
Walworth's Notice of Intent (charging document), despite that there was
never any administrative resolution of disputed facts, or administrative
hearing?

Question No. 3
Should this Court grant Certiorari where, compounded by question 1 and 2,
the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, contrary to Anderson v Liberty Lobby Inc,
477 U.S. 242, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed2d 202° (1086), Failed to accept any
of Petitioner Good's allegations as true, and drew every inference in favor
of Respondents, despite in hundreds of cases that Court correctly
acknowledged and applied the standard of review for summary judgment?

Whether the denial of notice to file an answer to a motion for summary judgment violates due process and Rule 83