Did the United States District Court, Magistrate Judge err in the decision to have the Plaintiff, Robert K. Decker be hand cuffed, (left wrist) and shackled during the trial on July 12, 2021

QUESTIONS PRESENTED z. Did the United States District Court, Magistrate Judge err in the decision to have the Plaintiff, Robert K. Decker be hand cuffed, (left wrist) and shackled during the trial on July 12, 2021. 2. Did the United States District Court, Magistrate Judge err in the decision to have the Plaintiff's motion for the "Spoliation of Evidence"that the Defendants failed to preserve during the Discovery process. 3. Did the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals err in affirming the decision of the United States District Court, Magistsatet.: Judge's decision to have the Plaintiff, Robert K. Decker be required to be handcuffed (left wrist) and shackled during the trial of July 12, 2021. 4. Did the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals err in affirming the decision of the United States District Court, iMagistrate Judge's decision to have the Plaintiff's motion for "Spoliation of Evidence" to includezit with directions to the jury be denied. 5. Finially the United States District Court Magistrate Judge and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals had erred in the denial of the matter to have the Plaintiff, Robert K. Decker appear before the jury "Handcuffed" and shackled in view during the time that the Plaintiff had giving testimony of the events that had transpired on September 20, 2017 -iii LIST OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE LOWER COURTS 1. This case was first filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, docket number: 2:18-cv-00278.~ 2. The Robert K. Decker, hereinafter, "Mr. Decker" gave consent to the Magistrate Judge, Mark J. Dinsmore to over see the pre-trial proceedings and the trial it self. 3. The complaint was filed on June 19, 2018, in the United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division. 4. Trial had commenced on July 12, 2021, which was a two day trial, before the Magistrate Judge, Mark J. Dinsmore. 5. Atythe close of the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Defendants on all claims against them. 6. In the complaint, Mr. Decker had alleged that all of the Defendants had used excessive force against Mr. Becker. Mr. Decker had asserted excessive force claims against Edwin,Baez, Lieutenant, Officer Zachariah Hoffman, Officer Benjamin Monnett, Officer Adam Rogers, and Officer Joseph Vest. Also Mr. Decker had claimed a failure to protect claim against the four-officers, against the Lieutenant, Edwin Baez for assulting Mr. Decker. . 7. The inc#inmdent had occurred on September 20, 2017 inuthe "S.H.U." "Special Housing Unit, in Terre Haute, United States Penitentiary. 8. Mr. Decker was represented by attorney Pamela Page on December 16, 2019, for all pre-traalsmotion and the trial. 9. On June 10, 2021, Mr. Decker's attorney had filed a motion for the "Unshackling and permission" to be dressed in civil attire at: the trial. The motion was granted in part and denied in part. Mr. -i Decker was allowed to appear before} the jury in civilian attire but was denied the unshackling of his wrists and ankles. He was required to be hand cuffed to a belly chain with only his left wrist and his ankles were also to be shackled. 10. Mr. Decker had also filed a motion for the spoliation of a video recording that was not preserved pursuant to the Code of Federal Regulations and the Program Statement of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. That motion was also denied by the Magistrate Judge the day before the trial and the day of the trial. 11.{ Mr. Decker was also written an incident report of Code violation of 214A "Attempted" which there is no such code in the Program Statement or the Code of Federal Regulations. “12/ Mr. Decker had filed his Notice of Appeal on July 23, 2021 to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. °13./ The case was submitted to the Seventh Circuit on June 15, 2023 and was decided on June 21, 2023,"Affirming the decisioncof the Jury and the United States District Court's decision. , JURISDICTIONAL BASIS For the United States District Court, jurisdiction was