Whether the lower courts failed to address the medical needs of the petitioner's central diabetes insipidus

Question(s) Presented 1) Whether the lower courts were wrong for not seeking out, or for not causing the medical doctor, defendant, to seek out the cause for my Central Diabetes Insipidus (excessive frequency of urination) so that it may be properly treated, as hospital records of the year 2016 stated the eause unknown and left the matter for the prison doctor, the defendant, to figure out, and,was the 8th and 14th Amendment to U.S. Constitution violated hereby. 2) Whether the lower courts were wrong for dismissing the case of my Central Diabetes Insipidus only due to false statement of defendant Kerstein that the hospital records of my 2016 year hospitalization stating that i have “excessive frequency of urination” do not exist, and whether this violated the Rule that credibility should not be assessed on summary judgment motion Rule 56 civil procedure. : 3) Whether the lower courts, the judges thereof that were assigned to this case were wrong for not recusing themselves from this case due to bias of the situation of my Central Diabetes Insipidus, as shown above in sections #1 and #2 above this page, and whether the 8th and 14th Amendments to U.S. Constitution violated hereby (the cruel and unusual punishment and equal protection clauses). 4) Whether in totality of the circumstances I was denied medical relief for a serious medical need of my Central Diabetes Insipidus and thereby am under the subjection of cruel and unusual punishment and the denial of equal protection of the laws including, but not limited to, Title 42 ; U.S.C. §1983. , 5) Whether it was/is constitutional for the court clerk to stop me from serving summons by refusing to place seal of court on summons. 6) Whether the Constitution of U.S. was violated by the District Court having allowed to pass as proper the clerk of the court error of withholding the timely made “Notice of Objection Disposition” until after the District Court dismissed the case by falsely accusing the of having made no objections to the Recommend Disposition, and whether this also violated the Rules of Civil Procedure and is reversible and/or plain error. 1