Does the Federal Rule [Fed. R. Civ. Pro. Rule 4] significantly affect the result of a litigation for a Federal Court to disregard a law of a State that would be controlling in an action upon the same claims by the same parties in a State Court?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Question 1: (A) Does the Federal Rule, [Fed. R. Civ. Pro. Rule 4] . significantly affect the result of a litigation for a Federal Court to disregard a law of a State that would be controlling in an action : upon the same claims by the same parties in a State Court? (B) Are the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, contrary to or inconsistent with the Rules Enabling Act [28 U.S.C. 1652], Houston v. Lack, 487 U. S. 266 (1988); Mullane v. Central ; Hanover Bank, 339 U. S. 306, 320 (1950), depriving Plaintiffs of State created rights and privileges contrary to the Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64 (1938) doctrine; (C) does the Fed. R. Civ. Pro. Rules 3 and 4 sub silento, overrule the aforementioned Supreme Court decisions, depriving Plaintiffs of substantive State created rights and privileges in violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U. S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 1? Question 2: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit may disregard and totally ignore this Court’s precedent, by utilizing it’s Rule 47A(a) to dismiss a pro se indigent litigants’ appeal without permitting the litigant the opportunity to present the issues, present argument and brief the issues, before the Court renders a decision, violate the Due Process, Equal Protection Clauses and the First Amendment of the United States : Constitution? (B) Thus violating 28 U.S.C. 1915; 28 U.S.C. 2072 and this Court’s precedent? (ii)