Whether the lower courts properly applied the summary judgment standard set forth in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the Lower Courts follow the precedence standards set by this US Supreme Court in Anderson V Liberty Lobby (106 S.Ct. 2505) since this was even one of the cases that the Magistrate himself cited in his Finding and Conclusions . of Law concerning when summary judgment for the moving party can be granted before anytrial on the disputed material fact issues of a case is had by the non-moving party once the non-moving party comes forth with material evidence attached to the non-moving party’s Response Brief that a jury can believe since; this issue had obviously already been addressed and set by this US Supreme Court and had also previously been accepted and correctly applied by the Fifth Circuit Court as well as numerous other Appellate Courts; or did the Magistrate and the District Court still misunderstand the US Supreme Court’s decisions and instructions contained in Anderson V Liberty Lobby (477 U.S. 242, 255) which the Magistrate himself had cited as well as the Fifth Circuit’s current interpretation of the US Supreme Court’s instructions as to the lower court’s function along with the jury’s function which had already been stated in the US Supreme Court during the Anderson V Liberty Lobby (106 8.Ct. 2505) and which the District Court had then repeated and then citied on page 3 of the District Court’s own Order sustaining a portion of the Plaintiff's Objections on just the Business & Commerce 305.053 claim when the District Court itself had cited the Fifth Circuit Court’s interpretations and instructions concerning a judge’s function when considering a summary judgment motion per the Fifth Circuit Court during the Dewan V M-I (_F. 3" _,2017 2324703) case which is now published and cited as the Dewan V M-I (858 F.3™ 331) Federal case precedence; or did the Magistrate and the District Court shock the conscious of the public and so far depart from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings concerning the granting of surnmary judgment to the moving party after the nonmoving party Plaintiff puts forth material evidence and testimony that a jury could . | believe because there had been no direct evidence presented by the defense to contradict the Plaintiff's evidence that was presented in the Plaintiff's Response Brief, so therefore has the lower court’s now sufficiently shock the conscious of this US Supreme Court and the Public when the Lower Courts recently made their Factual Findings and Rendered their Opinions and Judgments on this case due to the lower courts apparent continued misunderstanding of the US Supreme Court in the Anderson case as well as the lower court’s continued misunderstanding of the Federal Fifth Circuit Court’s prior decisions and instructions which are contained in the Dewan case which were both cited by the two different courts as shown above? 2. Did the Lower Courts Factual Findings as well as the Appellate Court’s Recent Opinion in this case shock the conscious sufficiently, when coupled with the insufficient de novo review of the entire Magistrate Court's original court records by the District and Appellate Courts, which is an important federal matter, along with the sanctioning of the Magistrate Court’s findings by the District and Appellate Court; therefore, did the District and Appellate Courts opinions and orders depart so far Jrom the accept and usual course of judicial proceedings so as to now call for the exercise of this US Supreme Court’s current supervisory power under 28 USCA 1254(1) on this important federal matter; and is this departure so far from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceeding by the District and Appellate Court, that it now involves a federal question of constitutional rights since the completely new interpretation opinions of the District and Appellate Courts actually conflicts with the relevant decisions of this US Supreme Court in the Anderson V Liberty Lobby (106 ; S.Ct. 2505) case as well as numerous other Federal Appell