Whether the Circuit Court for Alleghany County, Maryland should have given the pro se petitioner an opportunity to challenge the removal of his complaint to federal court

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . / 1. FOLLOWING THE COURTS CLANTIVE OF Atam PIF PS ALOT) OW TO WOTH ORAW UNDER CVU. ACTION WO, ELR~-Zb-20/Z, FILED NOWEMBER F7, Zozy SHactLy ° GIVLE ACTION Wo, SAG~ 22-318 HAVE GLEN ENTEQTa:n(Bd ? ; 2. SCE RO SE ai TIAE DID Wor LULL A COMTLAINT Int FEDERAL COURT. SMACLO PRO SE LAINIE GE LOCALE FOR APPELLATE COSTS jOLStULTINC E9004 DEFENDANT §? REMOVAL OF A STATE ConrLtinF Fo FEEL COURT PE 3. SHan2d AKO SE PLANT LLS MOTION FOREAIBVE COAPLAINT FO CARL COURT FOR ALLEGHAY COLMTY (BOCKETED FECLAELY ZB, 2022) pri h P1077 ON To STEIKE (DOCKET ED A14RLH 3, 2022) HAVE EEN RULED ON PRIOR TO COURTS ORBER, OF 4Liglest 6, 20Z2 7 mo . 4. SHOULD THE CIRCUIT COURT LOR ALLE CAAY COUNTY, MALV LAND AWE GIVE ve P¢O7IONER FYE OPPORTUNITY FO cua LLENCE THE RELI OVAL. oF PET I~ TION ERTS COntphtinT Fo LEOERAL Cour ?P : S. SHOKLO THE CIRECKIT COURT £0R. ALLECHNY COLE TY, ALO LENO 44YE ANSNERE® PEZITION ERIS “eeLERAL QUESTIONS?” , 6. SH6CLLD THE CARCLUT CORT FOR ALLECASY COLATY, A14ARVLAND GAYE COA/VERTEO PETETIANER'S “ced Ehet QUESTIONS” Fo STATE EQuivacents 7 7. SHOULD HEOERAL COURT HAVE REMOVED PLAINTIEE’S “Ata eRACtICe Aro NECEL CENCE.” ChAIANS TO SravE Coceer W178! “PEbERAL Cees? °