Should federal habeas corpus rule 8(a) require a written order from a federal district court judge when not appointing a magistrate judge to oversee an evidentiary hearing decision?

questions presented here, where the court found in Holder, that: "It's the duty of this Supreme Court to directly forumlate and put in force statutory rules," granting certiorari, to set forth clear language for rule 8(a), evidentairy decision, by a federal judge who elects not to appoint a magistrate judge to make evidentairy decision?" 7. Did the Sixth Circuit Court have the power to decide the merits of petitioner's writ of mandamus? 8. "Should this Supreme Court in exercising it's appellate review, apply this court's holdings found in Cheney Supra,: "That the writ may not issue, while altermative avenues or relief remain availible," to the Sixth Circuit Court's panel's May 23 2018, opinion?” (a), "To use Cheney Supra, to determinate, whether the Sixth Circuit Court's panel mistakenly applied petitioner's pleadings after August 13, 2009, and before January 18, 2018s, filing of petitioner's writ of mandamus, to determine whether these were, within the definition of the meaningful and alternative avenuse to deny petitioner's writ of mandamus, requiring this Supreme Court to Remand the Writ back to the Sixth Circuit Court's panel?" 9. In vewing, that rule 8(a), dose absolutely provide for the written order, on evidentairy hearing decision. "Dose, the federal district court's docket journals; The January 28, 2008s district court's order; and the August 13, 2009s Judgment, provide sufficient document evidence, to conclude that federal district court Judge Ludington, did not compy with federal habeas corpus rule 8(a), in providing a written order on evidentairy decision, to warrant remand, back to the Sixth Circuit Court, to have judge Ludington answer the accusations set forth in petitioner's writ of mandamus ?"" 10. "Should petitioner's question on, ‘Whether federal district court judge Ludington abuse his discretion, when he failed to comply with rule 8(a), evidentairy decision to petitioner's pleadings, be considered an issue of first impression," as to allow the Sixth Circuit's panel to reach the merits of the writ on remand?" li. "Should this Supreme Court find that the Sixth Circuit Court's panel failed to answer all the questions, under the panel's own authority used in their May 23, 2018s, opinion from Goetz Supra?" 12. "Did the Sixth Circuit Court's Panel in it's May 23, 2018 opinion, terminated it's inquire after just applying the first factor from Sixth Circuit Court Case Law of John B. v Goetz, leaving the rest of the factors, unaswered, requiring Remand, to answer the writ to determine whether the writ should be issued?" 13. "Should this Supreme Court apply, this Court's reasoning found in Schlangenhuf Supra; "That determination of whether the court of appeals had the power to determine all the issues presented in petitioner writ of m