Did the Appellate Court err when acting in direct violation of the facts of the case, the Rules of the Court, and the codified laws of the United States of America

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Did the Appellate Court err when acting in direct violation of the facts of the case, the Rules of the Court, and the codified laws of the United States of America, when the Appellate Court issued a decision on 12 July 2021 denying Petitioner’s appeal citing the purpose of denial as a failure to file Notice of Appeal, when the electronic filing confirmation email notice on 12 May 2021 confirms Notice of Appeal filed & accepted by the lower Courts? 2. Did the lower Courts err in discharging this Petitioner’s underlying lawsuit for damages against Respondent via Summary Judgment, when disputed facts of a material were indisputably present in the case at the time of decision? 3. Did the lower Courts err in discharging Petitioner’s underlying lawsuit for damages against Respondent via Summary Judgment, when the Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment was untimely filed, submitted 44-days after the suspense date to file a timely Motion for Summary Judgment? 4. ~ Did the lower Courts err in accepting a Motion for Summary Judgment that was untimely filed 44days after the 15 July 2020 suspense date of Discovery established by the Court and in accordance with FRCP Rule 56(b)? 5. Did the lower Courts err by routinely acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner in direct violation of Petitioner’s “Rights” protected and guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, the Sth and 14th Amendment “Rights” to Due Process of Law (procedural and substantive)? , 6. Did the lower Courts err by routinely acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner in direct violation of Petitioner’s “Rights” protected and guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, the 7th Amendment “Right” to Equal Protections Under the Law? 7. Did the Respondent violate the Court ordered terms of Discovery via acts of non-compliance, and not the Petitioner as the Respondent routinely asserted and stated as basis for Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment? 8. Did the lower Courts limit, deny, or prohibit any lawful remedy grated to Petitioner for the gross ; violation fo Petitioner’s “inalienable Rights”, if so, is Petitioner then afforded remedy (a concept well established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)? , 1