Did the U.S.D.C. commit legal error by granting defendant's motion to dismiss under res judicata without allowing the appellant an opportunity to contest it?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED I. DIB THE U.S.D.C. COMMIT LEGAL ERROR BY GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RES JUDICATA WITHOUT ALLOWING THE : APPELLANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST IT? II. DID THE U.S.D.C. COMMIT LEGAL ERROR BY ADOPTING THE FINDINGS : OF THE MAGISTRATE THAT THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS IN THE FIRST AMENDED . COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF DID NOT STATE A PRIMA FACIE. : CASE FOR RELIEF EXCEPT FOR THE DENTAL ARGUMENTS? IIi. DID THE U.S.D.C. COMMIT. LEGAL ERROR AND VIOLATE APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS AND FEDERAL PROCEDURAL RIGHTS BY ALLOWING THE MAGISTRATE TO PARTICIPATE OVER APPELLANT'S REPEATED OBJECTION IN VIOLATION OF ROELL V. WITHROW, CAUSING AN UNWARRANTED IMPACT UPON THE COURT'S APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AFTER THE REVERSE AND REMAND BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE? VI. SHOULD THE U.S.D.C. HAVE ALLOWED SUBSTITUTION OF DEFENDANT PARTIES WHO WERE PLED IN THE DECLARATION OF FACTS (DOF) and ‘ SET FORTH IN THE REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (RIR) PRIOR TO DISMISSAL? V. Dogs DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT HERE AND PRISON POLICIES CREATE DISPARATE LIVING CONDITIONS, VIOLATIONS OF Con Seen oud ONAL LAW, ACTING OR FAILING TO ACT IN A DELIBERATELY INDIFFERENT MANNER SUFFICIENT TO SHOCK : THE CONSCIENCE CONSTITUTING -ACLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE APPELLANT AND ALL OTHER CDCR PRISONERS SUFFICIENT TO TRIGGER . THE COURT'S DUTY TO INVESTIGATE? : . . ‘ * .