issue being raised

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. If Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(b)(1), grants 21 days for a party to respond after being served, why would the Fourth Circuit Court uphold an allegation by the Respondent that the Petitioner did not file a timely response, which was filed on the 15th day after it was received? 2. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1), states that a plaintiff ; “shall” file an employment discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission : (EEOC) either 180 or 300 days after an “alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.”; why would . ; the Fourth Circuit Court uphold an argument that a claim not filed within 45 days and less than 180 days was not timely filed? 8. Would the Fourth Circuit Court be considered to have ignored Federal Rules of Civil Procedures when it stated in its Order that the (II. Legal Standard)(A.) Motion to Dismiss Under Fed. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), Plaintiff failed to exhaust the requirement of antidiscrimination functions as a jurisdictional bar, when in fact the Plaintiff clearly demonstrated that he exhausted all requirements and there were no other avenues to be explored? 4, Did the Fourth Circuit Court ignore the U.S. Supreme Court ruling when it failed to consider the U.S. Supreme Court’s affirmation in Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 131 S.Ct. 1186, 1194 (2011), when stating in its order that Plaintiffs claim cannot prove a causal connection between his prior EEO activity and his non-selection for a STSO position? The Supreme Court ruling states that an-employer is liable when a : supervisor acting with a discriminatory motive uses ii a delegated authority to cause an adverse employment action. 5. Did the Fourth Circuit ignore the U.S. Supreme Court ruling when it ignored the fact that Plaintiff met all the requirements of a causal connection concerning the Respondent’s Assistant Federal Security Director (AFSD Stanton), his prior EEO activity and his nonselection for an STSO position? iii LIST OF PROCEEDINGS United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit No. 19-1427 _ Ricky W. Campbell, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ; Kevin McAleenan, Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Defendant-Appellee Date of Final Opinion: August 26, 2019 ; Date of Rehearing Denial: November 5, 2019 United States District Court of the Western District of North Carolina 3:17-cv-707-RJC-DCK : Ricky W. Campbell, Plaintiff v. Kirsten M. Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland Security, Defendant Date of Final Order: March 15, 2019