1. DiDTtne united states District courtmagistrataw +he southern Dis+ric+in on d for Ml AMI - DADE county>-Florida Error in denying the Petitioners £3 u.s.c. ruling on -the merit of the const i tu ti on ai v/i'olati on Cl ai m. ?

2. DiD The uni fed States court- of APPea 15 for the Eleventh c! rcuit ^ of 6eo6icx, cierK of court marshall Error in DiSmissingtae feK-Hooers 'uoTice or APffeal >' when the magistrate of the united States District court for the Southern District in and for MiAMi-DAoe coanfvt Florida magistrate ordered ATransmi teal of the notice •fo the uni fed states courts of APPeals for the Eleventh Circuit court in time for Appellant review. ?^Si5M state habeas corpuSywithout Petitioners State and federal

3. DiDThe united States Districtcourtmcxgistaote for the Southern District in and -for MiA/Ai-DADE county, florida deviated or Errored By not ruling on the meri t of A State and federal Constitutional Violation claim fhatfi) resulted in A decision that iuas matron/ 4oyor Involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal lau> as determi ned 8y the Supreme court Of the united States or (a) resul ted in A decision teat-was Based unreasonaBie application Determination of the tacts i of tee evidence presented in the State court proceed i Pursuant to Florida aSu*s.c.aa5H(d)(i),oadfo). ?on an n light ngs

Did the United States District Court magistrate err in denying the petitioners' 28 U.S.C. §2254 state habeas corpus petition without ruling on the merits of their state and federal constitutional violation claims?