Did the U.S. District Court and U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals justices abuse their discretion, create manifest injustice, substantially err, prejudice, and have a legal duty, obligation, and sworn judicial oath to make a written decision under Rule 60 on whether the respondent Ethicon corporate attorneys intentionally and in bad faith knowingly committed fraud upon the court to obtain a wrongful summary judgment entry/order for financial gain

QUESTIONS PRESENTED QUESTION ONE DID THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT AND U.S. FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICES ABUSE THEIR DISCRETION, CREATE MANIFEST INJUSTICE, SUBSTANTIALLY ERR, PREJUDICE, AND HAVE A LEGAL DUTY, OBLIGATION, AND SWORN JUDICIAL OATH TO MAKE A WRITTEN DECISION UNDER RULE 60 ON WHETHER THE RESPONDENT ETHICON CORPORATE ATTORNEYS INTENTIONALLY AND IN BAD FAITH KNOWINGLY COMMITTED FRAUD UPON THE COURT TO OBTAIN A WRONGFUL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ENTRY/ORDER FOR FINANCIAL GAIN IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT AND APPEAL BY RIGHT IN THE U.S. FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN ORDER, TO PROTECT RESPONDENT(S) ETHICON TO CONTINUE TO UNLAWFULLY MANUFACTURE DANGEROUS AND DEFECTIVE POLYPROPYLENE(Ge, COMMON PLASTIC) MESH AND SUTURE PRODUCTS THAT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE IMPLANTED IN THE HUMAN BODY IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW? QUESTION TWO DID THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT AND U.S. FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICES ABUSE THEIR DISCRETION, CREATE MANIFEST INJUSTICE, SUBSTANTIALLY ERR, PREJUDICE, AND HAVE A LEGAL DUTY OR OBLIGATION, AND SWORN JUDICIAL OATH TO PROTECT THE GENERAL PUBLIC BY ISSUING A ORDER TO RESPONDENT(S) ETHICON TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM CONTINUING TO UNLAWFULLY NON-DISSOLVING DANGEROUS AND DEEECTIVE POLYPROPYLENE (COMMON PLASTIC) ADULTERATED MESH AND SUTURE PRODUCTS TO GENERAL PUBLIC THAT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE IMPLANTED IN THE HUMAN BODY IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW?