Did the 4th Circuit's Published Opinion, with dissent, err in its 2-1 majority affirmance of the district court's dismissal of Bing's pro se complaint, under Rule 12(b)(6)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED , On May 19, 2020, the Fourth Circuit Court of : : Appeals published their Opinion, 19-1220, having heard oral arguments on December 11, 2019. The published opinion has successfully resolved the question of appellate jurisdiction, in Sections I and II, and as such will not be included for further mention in this ; petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for writ of certiorari. The published dissent on sections III and IV, with respect to pro se pleading requirements, held : . in Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009), Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly . : . (2007), Erickson v. Pardus (2007), Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A (2002), by the district, appellate, and the US Supreme Court, as well as the resulting abrup; _tion of Rules of Federal Civil Procedure, have inspired this pro se petition to respectfully request a review of . the following: . _ 1. Did the 4th Circuit’s Published Opinion, with ; : dissent, err in its 2-1 majority affirmance of the district court’s dismissal of Bing’s pro se complaint, under : Rule 12(b)(6); whereas: a. Premature invocation of Rule 12(b)(6) at the pleading stage, effectively allows it to supersede not only established pleading require; . ments for pro se complainants who bring ; disparate treatment and disparate impact ; claims of employment discrimination under Title VII of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seg. and . race discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. . . , § 1981 et seg. but, effectively renders the short and plain language of Federal Rule of ; Civil Procedure 8. as null, and; ; b. Does the district court, with the appellate court’s affirmance in the decision to apply Rule 12(b)(6), intend to so narrowly read application of pro se litigant’s pleading standards, as read above, to effect the death of ‘notice of pleading, summarily, and; c. Does the district court and 4th circuit’s departure from pleading standards and established criteria for the adjudication of complaints ; filed under Title VII of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e : et seq. and race discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq.; or, other similarly disadvantaged plaintiffs, resultingly impair its own adherence to due process, in its adoption of differently applying standards both in measures of federal rules for civil procedure ‘ and those of substantive due process, in tan. dem; produce a pattern of censorship for the court’s want of evidentiary merit that could not be produced or attributed to the allegations but for the court’s natural progression past pleadings to discovery, thereby causing irreparable harm to Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, observed under: ‘ : i. U.S. Const. amend. I, (“Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom : of speech . . . and to petition the Govern: ment for a redress of grievances”), and; ; , uu. U.S. Const. amend. V, “No person shall , be held ... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ... without just compensation.”, and; d. Pursuant to Title VII of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seg. and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq. ; ili : LIST OF PROCEEDINGS United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit —_ No. 19-1220 . Robel Bing, Plaintiff v. Brivo Systems, LLC, Defendant Date of Final Opinion: May 19, 2020 ; Date of Rehearing Denial: June 30, 2020 : United States District Court for the District of ; } Maryland, Greenbelt Division . Case No. 8:18-CV-01543-PX Robel Bing, Plaintiff v. Brivo Systems, LLC, Defendant : Date of Final Order: January 22, 2019 : , iv , ;