Whether the District Court's adoption of the Magistrate Judge's recommendation without party consent violates due process rights, and whether denial of CM/ECF system access to an indigent litigant obstructs their ability to respond to motions and access court records

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the District Court's adoption of the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, despite the absence of consent from either party, constitutes a violation of Petitioners' due process rights under the Constitution. 2. Whether the denial of access to the CM/ECF system to an indigent ‘litigant, thereby obstructing the Petitioners’ ability to respond to motions and access court records, violates their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 3. Whether the actions of Respondents, including the omission of critical evidence and misrepresentation to the court, amount to intrinsic and extrinsic fraud, warranting relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). 4. Whether the lower courts erred in allowing a stay of discovery despite substantial evidence of fraud on the court, in violation of Petitioner’s constitutional rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 5. Whether the lower courts failed to appropriately address the influence of local political figures and city leaders in obstructing _ justice and depriving the Petitioner of his right to a fair trial.