Whether the court of appeals abdicated its responsibility to conduct a plenary review and thereby improperly denied the petitioner of his constitutional right to trial by jury

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . I am requesting the U.S. Supreme Court, the court of last resort, to review this petition even though it focuses on various types of judicial errors — an area this court usually does not address — by a district court when it granted summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. In this instance, the errors — such as the court independently introducing grounds and alleged undisputed facts : without prior notification (5 examples presented below) — are so numerous (14 examples in total ; presented below), fundamental and pervasive so as to constitute overwhelming proof that the lower , courts improperly denied me of my constitutional : right to trial by jury. In addition, the district court ignored grounds and evidence supporting my claims, as well as ignored the Respondents’ own . contradictory statements and testimony. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s : ; decision “[flor substantially the reasons provided by the District Court.” (App. p. 9a.) Its brief, oneparagraph analysis consists solely of quotes from the district court opinion. Therefore, the questions for this court are as follows: e Because of the numerous, fundamental and pervasive errors and omissions committed by the district court, and because the court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision for substantially the same reasons, did the court of appeals abdicated its responsibility to i ~ cps | “sores.” conduct a-plenary review'as required and). Oo LES! ll’ ©" thereby improperly deny me of my Ba PE Ee a oe oc | constitutional right to trial by jury?” aes ae ee Ee «5° "Se Because of the numerous; fundamental; ane en a URE Sa ' “pervasive errors-and omissions committed by 30: 03: beni re ~.?--"". me of my constitutional right:to trial by:jury?::: BR 8