Did the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit err in reviewing the full facts of the videotape and the use of force report by the committee that determined force was used and justified against the petitioner?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 4. Did the united States court of Appeals for the Sixth Cirtuit Feview the full facts of the videotope P 4 Found 4.4 the united States couctef Appeals error When | ee the real uSe of force Feport by the commibree determined thot force was used and dustifyed agoing+ Petitioner Ghouldthe Appeals court have reversed this matter on thot fac} alone? . a. rs the united Sives court+of AppealS decision in conf \ie+ with Wis Own Cage Law in Combs V. wilkinson SLD. F.3d. BHD =rn light of +ne cea) faas that the use of force Committee completely determined “that force Was employed Gepinst+ petitioner under 2.A.C, Rule 513810-9G-0D. ; Wich +he bistrict failed +o acknowledge, So did the district on iASown Strike the real face of +ho crepoct making 4thiS matter consistent with combs Vv. Wilkinson P 3 Did the district court error by not addressing the AndencL and Material within Petitioner motion for Summary Judgment P 4. =rs thig matter in conflict with this united States Svoreme Court deciSion in ScoHt.V. HareiS 19 Nght of the Videotape? 5 Did the District court error by not addressing OAL. | 190-9-02 aS provided by petitioner in. Whole Within hig motion ~for Summary Bugera that force Was atfirmed dopinst him Wich Would make Clear of +he | So Called unremarkable decision by the DiStrict+ CHAP b Did the district court error by Stateing that force : , was not USed agninS+ petitioner for +he entire moter toot Ren Stateina that no -force Was used | Gopinst petitioner ? Oo , 1, Will this united Stos Supreme court ’xertige Hs Supecwisory powler ond rewiew the real fats of . “the wed NIdeOtape And Fw@ed, aS Sanctioned by +thiscourts deciSion im Stolt v.Harrig alone with the real fecords Gnd determination of +h2 usd of force reports under — OAC. Pul€ SA304-03 that was completely Processed Aoainst Petitioner that wii make +he UnrenarKable determination by the districd Court markableP @. ES the united States Court of Appeals decision Along With the District court decision tn error iacesord to OAL. 5120-49-02 in Vignt oF Fed. RB. Evid QO3H Gnd @® Fed. fF Enid Yor.