I. Motion for Affirmance of the Law of the Case on Prior Appeal in 4th Cir. App. Case No. 21-1470.

II. The instant appeal contains novel questions of law.

III. There is no voluntary, knowing consent to magistrate R&R on dispositive matters which denies/diminishes substantial rights including substantial rights akin to mode of trial capable of repetition, capable of evading review, and incapable of vindication on appeal. Denial of the substantial right of de novo determination by Article III Judicial Officer without Report and Recommendation (R&R) on dispositive matters, hereafter coerced R&R, impermissibly denies/diminishes substantial rights without consent including but not limited to, appeal by and through the conflicted district court judge, diminished standard of review with R&R, denial of full, fair, and meaningful review, and/or diminished time to file objection/appeal of R&R with potential loss of full, fair, and meaningful review if deemed untimely with improper procedural default by the conflicted overworked and underpaid district court judges on a non-jurisdictional deadline as in the prior Granuaile, LLC, case (2:16-cv-03969) and in this case.

IV. Material to review is the irregular posture of the case in the district court.

V. Under these facts, reasonable men/women should and would have reasonable questions regarding the district court judges' appearance of and/or lack of impartiality.

VI. Stay pending resolution is respectfully requested.

Whether a magistrate's report and recommendation on dispositive matters without Article III judicial officer review violates a party's substantial due process rights