George Baldwin Hutchinson, Jr. v. United States, et al.

Did the Eleventh Circuit err in affirming the district court’s requirement that Petitioner serve individual government employees in a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) lawsuit, when well-established precedent and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4() mandate service only upon the United States While converting a FTCA Claim into a Bivins further 11th Circuit conversion into a 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 or 1985 that’s not in the original compliant?

Did the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling effectively affirm the lower court's conversion and enforcement of the Petitioner to pursue a Bivens claim rather than an FTCA claim, thereby misapplying governing law and creating an unconstitutional barrier to Petitioner’ ability to seek redress against the United States, while the complaint did not assert claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 or 1985, nor did it invoke Bivens?

Did the lower courts’ actions violate Petitioner’ due process rights by imposing improper procedural burdens that contradict Supreme Court precedent regarding the FTCA and Rule 4 service requirements?

Did the lower courts fail to provide sufficient findings of fact and legal reasoning, thereby violating Petitioner’ due process rights and obstructing meaningful appellate review, as established in Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985)?