Stephen Lynch Murray v. Phil Archer, et al.

QUESTION: Does the phrase "if any claims" sufficiently detail any claims to make them the subject of or amenable to litigation? alternate questions Can a district court attempt to broadly dismiss all claims with prejudice without "parsing" the facts or claims? As a result say "if any" claims were not dismissed with prejudice? And then courts in every subsequent proceeding pretend these non-existent "if any" claims exist, refer to the actual claims, and were ruled on, as a sloppy trick deny hearing on actual claims in either amendment or appeal? Can a court say it's "under no obligation to parse" a complaint, then make a ruling sufficiently vague, and without connecting law to specific factual details, as to later argue it made any ruling on any claim? Then sloppily choose what ruling to argue was previously made, with the only consistency being that the previous ruling is construed in whatever way is situationally necessary to deprive a plaintiff hearing in any venue? Can a district write a dismissal so negligent - and having the worst "shotgun" characteristics - that courts and parties are able to say it does whatever they want as convenient at a given moment, including opposite things within a few lines of each other, to deny a plaintiff hearing without ever providing real or rigorous legal justification, and knowing there will be no relief from this busy Court