Did the court err in not allowing petitioner to develop the record for appeal, by allowing at least one hearing?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW DID THE COURT ERR; 1. IN NOT ALLOWING PETITIONER TO DEVELOP THE RECORD FOR APPEAL, BY ALLOWING AT LEAST ONE HEARING? 2. IN FINDING THAT LIMITATIONS CONTROLS THIS ACTION UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1983, AS A THREE YEAR STATUTE FOR INJURY UNDER MICHIGAN LAW? 3. IN IGNORING MICHIGAN LAW AS TO STATUTE PETIONER IS CURRENTLY UNDER, AS OF 2000, TO WHICH THE 2005 ORDER IS VOID AB INITIO, IN NOT COMPLYING WITH SAID STATUTE? 4. IN VIOLATING PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS OF KNOWING WHAT HE WAS TO DEFEND, IN 2005, IN THE MAGISTRATE HAVING AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINER REVIEW PREVIOUSLY LITIGATED MEDICAL EVIDENCE, ABSENT THE 2000 X RAY, TO ADAPT THE FINDING THAT PETITIONER’S INJURY IN 1998 WAS A TORN SHOULDER. TO WHICH THE MAGISTRATE IN 2000 CONSIDERING THE 2000 X RAY ORDERED PETITIONER TO RECEIVE REASONABLE AND NECESSARY MEDICAL CARE FOR HIS ROTATOR CUFF SURGERY AND FOLLOW UP TREATMENT? 5. IN IGNORING THE 2018 ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER'S IN ASSERTING THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA CONTROLS THE 2005 VOID AB INITIO ORDER, TO THEN CALCULATE WHEN LIMITATION STARTS? 1 , . :