Did the district court's dismissal of the Petitioner's § 2241 petition, without opportunity to amend, violate the meaning and scope of the rule?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ; )Did the district cours Uhl; zedion of Tole 4 of §33a54 +0 dismiss wilh gcejvdice the Pettioners § 294) petiten, withoot OfPor tunity +o amend, violate char meaning and scope of *ve cule? W)Did We cour velow ermas a matter of law by | | ‘gnoring tts oun precedence. ageing Mie Standard , of ceview in cases of Summacy is missal oxy & Aiskcict Court? wi) Does an agency 's le. BoP) 2x pansion of Pobib-ted Conduct leg. inmate disc plinacy Cocle 29v) +o ateas not considered at the time of We Cequ \atons enactment : (Trulincs elechonic messagin ), hat subject violators fo | . $2 9'"5 9) harsh Sometions (loss of geod Hime) , require Ye eagerey to Provide fair notice and comment vader ne Adwinistatve Procedure Act?