Does the ruling in this case violate Rule 56 and Supreme Court precedent?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does the ruling in this case by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit violate basic fundamental principles of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and therefore in direct conflict with existing precedent of the United States Supreme Court’s holdings in Tolan v. Cottan, 572 U.S. 650 (2014) and Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) when the Sixth Circuit refused to view any of the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party which were not “utterly discredited” by the dash cam videos but rather should have been viewed in in the light most favorable to the Petitioner in conjunction with the videos to show a dispute as to material fact as to whether Lewellyn posed a threat of death or serious bodily injury at the time she was shot ten (10) times? The Sixth Circuit refused and/or did not consider deposition testimony from Respondent Paschal who was outside of his SUV, regarding distance and cover between Paschal and Lewellyn and two photograph exhibits identified by Respondent Paschal that depict the scene of the shooting of Lewellyn and the position, field of vision and line of sight of Respondent Paschal when he fired his first shot from sixty feet away behind the cover of Jayroe’s SUV that establishes a dispute as to material fact that Lewellyn was not pointing the bb gun at Paschal or anywhere in his vicinity and therefore posed no objective reasonable threat of death or serious bodily injury to Paschal which establishes a dispute as to material facts and contradicts Paschal’s deposition testimony and the dash cam videos constitutes admissible evidence of a violation of Nancy Lewellyn’s constitutional rights that were clearly established, ii precluding summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. (ECF Nos. 93, 93-1, Photographs, PageID 489, PageID490) 2. Does the continued shooting of a mentally disturbed suspect such as Lewellyn, eight (8) times by Respondents after Paschal has shot her two times and the dash cam videos clearly show that Lewellyn had obviously surrendered the bb gun and/or fell to the ground incapacitated without the bb gun or weapon and posed no threat to Respondents, constitute gratuitous violence and excessive force that is a constitutional violation and clearly established under the law and/or an obvious case under the existing precedent and holdings of the United States Supreme Court in Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014), precluding summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity?