Whether the Third Circuit Court of Appeals abused its discretion in summarily affirming the district court's order, dismissing plaintiff Rodriguez's appeal, and agreeing with the magistrate judge and district judge on various issues

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 4. pb THe rere cxreury Cougr of Appears ABUSED | | wTSs brscRETrON FOR SUMMARELY AFFIRMING ; Tee bYrSTRIEcT CouRT’sS ORDER BECAUSE NO SuQ@STANTIAL QUESTION was PRESENTED "SY CLASNTIEE RobRrauMez’s APPEAL P we YES O No | 2. beb WHE “THTRD ctReutT Court oF ApPEMis ABusEd ao1s BEscRETDON FoR bismrssxne PLAINnTrer RodbRreEuUEZ's APPEAL Pursuant “TO DB U.S.C. SAAS ‘S) | (208), or SUMMARY ACTION PuRsuAnty “To j WRERD’ CERCUET LAR 27.4 AND T.0.P. Ad. bor l : | wt Neo 1 No we 3. bad THe “tures GeRcurt CURT OF APPEALS ABUSED Irs DeESscRETTON TN AGREETNG wore THE bEeETREET TRA PLAN TEFF RodRreMEZIS MOTIONS Sep Nev Stave A Shers ToR PRESPENTNG; Hos : ‘Case ~> ves” OD No { WY, Drb Whe Tered ct Reurr couRT oF APPEALS ABusEb | (ETS BDEIScRE TION mh AGREEING Wr THe | (MAGISTRATE SUbae AND tHe BEStRicr TUbGs BY — CSTATENG THAT THE BEFENDANTS Wab Fail COMeLTED With ALL “TERMS OF “THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT wf NES Q No | S. Deb “THE “THIRD CERCUET CouRT OF APPEALS ABUSED ETS DESCRETION IN AGREETNG WITH CTE ; . NAGESTRATE SUBGE Ther PLATNTIFF RebRTGUEZ Nine GEVEN AN OPPORTUNTTY To FTurw &ResEnyT (XS ARGUMENTS AT THE NOVEMEER AD 42044 CONFERENCE M ves O No | 6. Dab “THE (THERD crReurT CouRT OF APPEALS ABUSED Ets DIscRetTtoN BN FAILING, Te ADDRESS | PLAINTIFF Ropriauez’s LRIEASONS OF FILING | N\orsroN FoR LEAVE “TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAENT, WHICH MAGISTRATE ARUDGE <EMPROPERLY | Benzes add brsrReet Gubec ueserd F . ° Af Nes O No | Ye bad “me ~oerek> carcurr CouRT OF APPEALS ABUSE : ipts basceReEeTTON BY FAILING Abbess PLAINTIFY RobRrauez7s CRIEASONS AS “To WHY : ME Wab FIrLeb A MoTFON “re RE-OPEN Is CASE. nf Nes 1 No | OO 8. ben “tHe THIRD caRcurT CouRT oF APPEALS ABUSE -Sevs DErscRETION "BN FArLINne To AbbRESS PLAENTEFF RobRtquezis ARGUMENTS FoR MOoT-ron FOR CONFLICT Counsel, WHERE MAGISTRATE “QU_GEVIMOOTED AND brstRret ~ubee uPHeELd WITHOUT A PROPER HeARTNe “ro DETERMINE IF . : PLAENTIFET'S COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN REPRESENTATION wo Yes U No Q. Bob the Ture crReurr CouRT OF APPEALS ABused TTS DYrscRETION BY FATLIENG “TO ADPRESS WHY THE MAGISTRATE “JubGe DENTE PLAENTIFT RobRrGuezis Niorron “To APPorNT CONFI T COUNSEL MintHtouT A HeEARENEG, “Te DETERMENEG Urs NEEb MOR APPOXNTMENT OF CouNSEL UN ALLEGATHONS OF TENEF FECTANE REPRESENTATION DP uA ves U No 40. Ded he ere crREwrT CouRT OF APPEALS ABUSED TTS beseReTon “RN FATLENG “To AbDRESS “THE — ERTEASONS WEN maesTRATE Gbge ZMPROPERLY IZNFORMES PLAINTIEF RobRrguez THAT ANY NEY , CLAIMS usT BE BRouGHT =N NEW LAWSUIT, AND HOW THE DESTRIcT JUDGE FATLED “to AbbRESS “THES itssue > 4 Yeo 7 NO a AA. brs TRE THIRS CrRcurt COURT oF APPEALS ABUSES ITs STSCRETIEON “BY FATLING to AbbResS “THE TC RAGASONS WHY PLAINTIFF RobREGQUueZ was Not RERMIETTED "TH PuRcHAse HTS “TWO YyoRUBA | SANTERTA CONSECRSETED ORESHA ELEGaUC BEAbED | NECwWLAcEeS., SUE TO His 4 lo, 500.06 XIN COMPENSATORY DAMAGES LETNG MELD FoR A NAHOLE YEAR TEN : EScROW, AND “TREN, COMPLETELY CLAMIED Back “Vo : VAN “TewaARDS Act 64 > Ma NES H) No | : | | . : 1 t . ; 4 .