Whether the provision of the 28 U.S.C. 636 requires the district court judge to prevent the assigned magistrate judge from issuing a report and recommendation in order to avoid a de novo review of the case

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether the provision of the 28 U.S.C. 636 requires the district court judge to prevent the assigned magistrate judge from issuing a report and recommendation in order to avoid a de novo review of the case. II. Whether Petitioner’s Constitutional rights were clearly established under the : general rule of U.S. Constitution to be better protected while in segregation from the mobs who had just violently attacked him the previous day, whether this right was violated. III. Whether the 8 and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution provide that a Person should be subjected to double jeopardy, cruelly punished twice for the Alleged prison rule violation. IV. Whether the district court considered the law with a reasonable logic to the Question long addressed by the Supreme Court in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 for the violation of right while in segregation. V. Whether the established law requires the district court judge to solve credibility issues on motion for summary judgment, disregarding defendants’ credibility and perjury issues. VI. Whether the district court considered the correct inquiry of defendants’ state of mind due to the fact that Petitioner claimed he was being deprived of right and subjected to Cruel and Unusual Punishment. VII. Whether the Petitioner was not a suspect class of equal protection similarly situated to another inmate who received better protection, separated from his attackers while in segregation after being attacked by a group of gang members. VIII. Whether the decision of the district court and cases cited by the Appellate court to affirm conflicting with the prior decisions of same 8th Circuit and decisions from other circuits. . IX. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Petitioner appointment of Counsel under the facts of the case and Petitioner’s Health : Condition. , @ X. Whether the district court abused its discretion denying petitioner supplemental declaration of an Inmate who witnessed the attack in segregation and saw all lieutenants involved. ; XI. Whether the district court abused its discretion in ruling on discovery motions. XII. Whether the inclusion and referencing of Petitioner's prior conviction case number information is appropriate under Rule 403, Fed R. Evid. while petitioner’s credibility is not at issue. XIII. Whether under 28 U.S.C 609.06 Petitioner had a constitutional duty to retreat from the violent attack by 3 drunken Inmates of a group of mobs. Gi)