Whether the Fifth Circuit's decision conflicts with Supreme Court precedents regarding absolute claim transfers and summary judgment procedures

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. In Caribbean Mills, Inc., 394 U.S. 823 (1969), this Court held that: “where the transfer of a claim is absolute, with the transferor retaining no interest in the subject matter, then the transfer is not improperly or collusively made, regardless of the transferor's motive”,n. 9 (citations omitted).” , The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld that the Plaintiff's absolute assignment was ; improper. . This presents the following issue: Whether the Fifth Circuit’s decision conflicts with this Court’s binding precedent in Caribbean Mills, Inc., 394 U.S. 823 (1969), footnote 9 (citations omitted)? 2. In Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), this Court held that: “The plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion..”,at 322-326. iii . The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld , summary judgment where the pro se Plaintiff was not given proper notice, was taken by complete surprise, J not afforded any discovery, and was not permitted . to file any evidence in response to the converted summary judgment motion. This presents the following issue: Whether the Fifth Circuit’s decision conflicts with this Court’s binding , precedent in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) at 322-326 and with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56(c)? 3. Did the Fifth Circuit add to the recurring © conflict for the lack of a uniform test standard for 28 U.S.C. 1359, by affirming the Plaintiff’s absolute assignment as improper based on a legally deficient unpublished non binding“guide”, where in other circuits the case would have permitted the case to proceed? This presents the following issue: Whether the Fifth Circuit’s decision conflicts with other circuits due to the lack of a uniform eight test factor standard for 28 U.S.C. 1359? :