Terry Rene Chapman v. Social Security Administration, et al.

: How can a decision be final & be final to what; if it is unbinding without a Precedent for Stare Decisis? Will there be a Legislation of The Law not being upheld by Precedents or Stare Decisis -- & If unbinding to a Final Decision, what abridged an unabridged matter of a precedent for what is held by Stare Decisis in a Legislated Law? * What Constitute a Constitutional Matter if not by Law: Or a Public Interest: a State or Federal Statute or rules for or against Bridging...? The federal notice pleading standards for addressing that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claims...which would entitle him to relief."... for constitutional rights. * Rule 35 only address the hearing or rehearing en banc, in the 7.22.21 decision, case no. JMC-20-636; why was there not a poll to address the rehearing as petitioned, rule 35.a.2? Never was there a hearing but informal briefs that was Petitioned for a rehearing & rehearing en banc that was denied 9.24.21, case no. 21-1022. * Contemporary vs. Popular vs. Ways of Caring. The Courts, The People or Current Law ... The question here is Working with Disabilities (ADA), than to be Wrongfully Terminated as a Disabled Veteran from federal service. My question is, does the form js44 for case l:20cv- 00636jmc, 20-cv-00636-JKB establish a complaint; inwhich case no.21-1022 denied as having no reversible error(s)? * What is the uniform practice for Stare Decisis: Rule 35(a)(2) is of exceptional importance if the 4th circuit is to continue to use mere formalities to address issues from the lower courts on appeal in an abridge matter? * With the JS44 a conflict in this case; the request for Rehearing & Rehearing En Banc on the question for which the 4th circuit had denied case no. 21-1022, on the 7.22.21 decision in case no. 20-cv00636-jkb, that involves one or more exceptional importance on the petition for Rehearing & Rehearing En banc as to the complaint that was filed vs. what was adjudicated; 9.24.21. * How is this issue final, if not binding? Is The Court's Opinion not binding in all this, as to the Fed. Notice Pleading Standard? * Note: Justia Case Law- For unconstitutionality of nonprecedential Appellate Rulings, the legal intelligencers for contemporary findings or any findings for Binding Decisions in today's Persuasive Values, for working with Disabilities or in the mind, for a binding opinion to be constitutional. The consistent, reasonably, with previous judicial decisions on the same subject. ...that say what about an unbinding decision, the rulings in case no. 20-00636-jkb that does not address the consistence for the js44 as having a complaint. On its merit rule 45(b) to find favor; & a sufficient Complaint rule 37(a). It is the doctrine Rule 10-101, Standardized Court Form: for procedural due process for the federal pleading standard. In all this, how can something nonbinding be anymore than cause the court say so - - Can the court see blind matters for the law; that nonbinding can't be a metaphor for empathy, for stare decisis shares light to the laws that adds life to precedent? * Is the Petitioner's case for review a Matter of Law; to make the lower courts do their Due Diligence's in the Original Complaint for Wrongful Termination? The Petitioner had a complaint the lower court struck down as not being a complaint, case 20-636-jkb. * The 4th Circuit Court of the U.S., affirmed by unpublished per curiam an opinion and stated, unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. My question to the Supreme Court: What circuit(s) has precedent for stare decisis in every decision? How would an unbinding decision carry more weight than a Persuasive Argument; when a Persuasive Argument is an exception to the General Rule, per Stare Decisis? Did the Appellate Court & the District Court for the District of Maryland rule correctly; when equal weight should had been given to VA Findings of 100% disability for the Veteran: Inter agency medical reports provided proof of findings for disability: and showed errors of prejudicial harm to the petitioner in DeNovo, case WMN-1:14-03761? See 699f.3d 337,345(4thcir. 2012) or 669f.3d at 343-344. Is this a host or ghost decision by the Defendants; the basis for the errors to be identified and adjudicated by the Courts as a deviation from 1984 and 1996 decision of the same circuit ruling WL374184, see also, ssr96-8p? How fair is the Benchmark treatment of errors? Is jurisprudence in the law, upheld on 3-21-17 decision, case no.16-1173, 4th Cir., not to make the lower court rule on the matter of law in whole in this case remand? This is why I'm requesting the Supreme Court to help me in this matter as Pro Se in judging why the rehearing & rehearing en banc was denied with no binding law. Significant facts controlling laws to legal questions violating unabridgement. Judicial Proceeding Sanctions are Statutes for this type of Questioning in which the Appellate Court did nothing to address supervisory power to correct. The conflict for what is relevant to the material of the civil cover sheet being a federal pleading in case no. 21-1022 as jurisdiction in this Writ. The main Question is, based on being denied as to not having a claim or complaint. Other issues are involved as to Stare Decisis & the nature of the js44 for ADA & being Wrongfully Terminated from Employment as a valid Complaint for Relief. Why did the 4th Circuit not recognized that exceptional issues in this case for opioids & unforeseen into this pandemic sua sponte a federal practice, the court took upon itself...but as a matter of law closed-out Chapman to juris for the US. Supreme Court? Grave Contingencies to extraordinary circumstances for opioids & trying to fight FDA, The Gov't., & Big Pharma. To press forward as a last resort to the Supreme Court in unabridge issues abridged by the stated arguments of this case for Established Principles in judgment at relevant parts for Petitioner. FRCP. 56.