1. Did the Eleventh Circuit err in affirming the district court's requirement that
Petitioner serve individual government employees in a Federal Tort Claims
Act (FTCA) lawsuit, when well-established precedent and Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4) mandate service only upon the United States While
converting a FTCA Claim into a Bivins further 11** Circuit conversion into a
42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 or 1985 that's not in the original compliant?

2. Did the Eleventh Circuit's ruling effectively affirm the lower court's
conversion and enforcement of the Petitioner to pursue a Bivens claim rather
than an FTCA claim, thereby misapplying governing law and creating an
unconstitutional barrier to Petitioner' ability to seek redress against the
United States, while the complaint did not assert claims under 42 U.S.C. §§
1988 or 1985, nor did it invoke Bivens?

3. Did the lower courts' actions violate Petitioner' due process rights by
imposing improper procedural burdens that contradict Supreme Court
precedent regarding the FTCA and Rule 4 service requirements?

4. Did the lower courts fail to provide sufficient findings of fact and legal
reasoning, thereby violating Petitioner' due process rights and obstructing
meaningful appellate review, as established in Anderson v. Bessemer City,
470 U.S. 564 (1985)?

Whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in requiring individual service of government employees in an FTCA lawsuit contrary to established precedent and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4