Whether the Magistrate Judge exceeded authority and the District Court abused discretion in dismissing FTCA negligence complaint

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . 38 USC§ 901 makes the VA Secretary and VA Facility Directors Responsible for Providing PROTECTION of persons, to include patients, visitors, and employees at VA medical facilities and on Department Property. Veteran’s Health Administration’s Mission and Mandate, as codified by 38 USC§§§ 501, 901, 1721 as well as the Patient Bill Of Rights (38 CFR §17.33); Privacy Polices (42 USC 522; 38 CFR 1605); The VA’s Policy Prohibiting Patient Abuse (88 CFR 17.34) and Mandated Protection Of Vulnerable Persons ((38 CFR 1199)-ALL create a self-imposed nondelegable and non discretionary DUTY-upon the VA Agency ( VISN network directors and VA Medical Center facility directors). Specifically, 38 USC§ 901 and VA Security’s Policy(38 CFR 0730) mandate VA Secretary and VA Facility Directors—to: PROTECT Beneficiaries; CONTROL conduct of those under VA’s control and on VA Property; CORRECT dangerous conditions; and PREVENT harm Federal Torts Claims Act (28 USC § 1346 and §2671 et seq): is the exclusive remedy and makes the United States the sole Defendant in any civil action for injury, "caused by the negligent act or omission of any Gov’t employee (acting within scope of employment)." --in accordance with Tort Laws of the State where negligence occurred. Victims Rights Act: 18 USC §3771; Crime Control Act, 42 U.S.C. 10607(c); DOJ Victim Witness Program, 34 U.S.C. § 20141 AND Victim and Witness Protection Act Provide Crime victims' right to be reasonably protected from her abusers and require the District Court to RESTRAIN The Intimidation and Harassment Of Victims And Witnesses (to Include Plaintiffs). FRCP Rule 41 Involuntary (Penalty) Dismissal permits Defendant to motion the court to dismiss an action or claim If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with court rules or a court order in an established PATTERN of “dilatory” “conduct. The 3 Circuit REQUIRES District Courts considering a Rule 41(b) Penalty Dismissal motion to correctly apply the 6 —step process ( Six Poulis Factors) (Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Gas. Co.1984 ) THEREFORE, QUESTIONS ARE: 1. WHETHER the Magistrate Judge Exceeded his authority (28 USC §636; FRCP 72) and the District Court Abused Its Discretion and ignored 3rd Cire Rules and Precedent; and misapplied FRCP 41 (b) Involuntary Dismissal by improperly Granting Defendant’s strategic motion for Penalty Dismissal of Plaintiffs FTCA Negligence complaint--for “Failure to Prosecute Claim” ALTHOUGH: * Petitioner (a traumatized Cardiac and Heart Surgery Patient) Declined (for safety and health reasons) to “comply” with Defendant’s late-noticed Demand sO ii / . that travel long distance (during July heat wave )for WITNESS TESTIMONY (under pretext of civil case Discovery Rule 54 deposition subpoena, BUT) in the VA’s Internal Agency Administrative (criminal HIPAA) Investigation of her violent VA PATIENT ABUSERS -Absent WITNESS or VICITM PROTECTION from her patient abusers. * the CLAIM—‘Invasion of Privacy” State Tort that the Court “preserved” against her violent patient abusers--was not a claim that Plaintiff had made 2. WHETHER the Court improperly Denied Plaintiff's Requests for PROTECTIVE ORDER and Request TO ENJOIN VA facility administrators and counsel from inciting and facilitating intimidation and foreseeable preemptive and retaliatory violence by Defendant’s problematic Patient Abusers‘ 3. WHETHER the District Court Clerk’s Office triggered REVERSIBLE FUNDAMENTAL, LEGAL and PROCEDUAL ERRORS when it INCORRECTLY DESIGNATED and DOCKETED Plaintiffs FTCA (28 USC § 1346 et seq) NOT asa Federal Employer Liability Negligence complaint against the United States .. . BUT INSTEAD, the Clerk of Court erroneously DESIGNATED, DOCKETED AND TREATED the complaint as a ““42 USC 1983 Civil Rights Act: Other”” complaint against government subdivisions and against Govt’ employees in their individual capacity pursuant 42 USC §1983 Law:--setting the stage for misapprehension of Plaintiffs position; improper adjudica