Whether Fourth Circuit affirming district court's decision based on altered Notice of Appeal without performing any review on the merit of the appeal violates the equal protection and due process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances Clause of the First Amendment

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Alice alleged bribery, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 violation of her constitutional rights and replaced “vacate state , court order” with “seeking prospective relief”. | Chief Judge Liam O’Grady astonishingly estab| lished a claim of his own (App.3a-14a) re-litigating Oo corporate ownership, seek to vacate state court order, | and there are no Constitutional or federal protected | rights involved. Judge O’Grady proceeded to dismiss | his own self-established claim with prejudice based . ‘ on lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, . then he mooted all of Alice’s claims. Alice appealed. O’Grady court docketed the notice of appeal without including the court order that was attached to the notice of appeal. Fourth Circuit denied the motion to correct such incorrectly docketed Notice of Appeal, it affirmed District Court’ decision without } offering any discussion on merit. The Questions Presented Are: 1. Whether Fourth Circuit affirming district , court’s decision based on altered Notice of Appeal without performing any review on the merit of the appeal violates the equal protection and due process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances Clause of the First Amendment. If Fourth Circuit did not affirm based on the reason of the court caused faulty Notice of Appeal, then: 2. Whether Fourth Circuit mooting all of Alice’s : : claims after it dismissed its own self-established claim with prejudice to prevent Alice’s claims from residing . under the same specific legal case 1:21-cv-00752 and whether the Fourth Circuit did not consider much less | ii to construe much less to liberally construe Alice’s filings violates the equal protection and due process Clauses | of the Fourteenth Amendment and the right to petition | the Government for a redress of grievances Clause of | the First Amendment. Even for the Fourth Circuit’s self-established claim on its face: 3. Whether dismissing such self-established claim without having Jury trial the issue of financial ; contributions and the disputed facts violate the Seventh Amendment’s right to Jury trial. 4. Whether Rooker-Feldman Doctrine is applied correctly, and if so, whether this court should overrule Exxon and Lance and Colorado and Skinner and Johnson. 5. Whether judicial immunity and sovereign immunity bar this Fourth Circuit’s self-created claim. 6. Fourth Circuit’s self-established claim stated } there is no issue of Constitutional or Federal protected . rights, Fourth Circuit determined that its self-created claim failed to state a claim due to: “§ 1983 authorizes a federal cause of action against “any person” ... under color of state law”, “a state “is not a person within the meaning of § 1983.”” thus neither court defendants “are “persons” under this statute”, and “a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the official’s state office”, thus there exists:a failure to state a claim against all defendants. If this is so, whether this Court should abolish 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because “§ 1983 does not apply to states” and does not apply to “persons acting under the color of state law because they are the states.” |