WPC 24 ZB}HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSx6X@X@a1AutoList2$ a2AutoList2/ a3AutoList2: 2 faa4AutoList2E a5AutoList2P   a6AutoList2[   a7AutoList2f  2R }  !a8AutoList2q a1Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a) $ a2Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a) / a3Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a) : 2  -  a4Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a) E a5Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a) P a6Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)[ a7Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)f 24  }   a8Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)q  a1AutoList1$!" a2AutoList1/#$ a3AutoList1:%& 2 f aa4AutoList1E'( a5AutoList1P)* a6AutoList1[+, a7AutoList1f-. 2zR0a8AutoList1q/0 X0Í ÍX0Í Íҫx6X@X@<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXPXXx6X@X@<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXT\  PP(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular2PP,cAZ"Arial Regular<2PP,cAZ"Arial RegularT\  PP(hH  Z6Times New Roman RegularT\  PP(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularT\  PP(hH  Z6Times New Roman RegularT\  P P(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular23|x    = A'Legal #PX#  #x6X@X@##T\  PP# M  IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE 4$AT KNOXVILLE dddd 1 dddd 1 !#2PP# FILED#<2PP# November 23, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk  BAPTIST HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS,DDD) C/A NO. 03A019905CV00187 ) PlaintiffAppellee,<<<) HAMBLEN CIRCUIT ) vs.444 <<<) HON. KENDALL LAWSON, ) JUDGE MARY & JAMES C. YOUNG,) ) AFFIRMED AND DefendantsAppellants.) REMANDED WM. STANTON MASSA, III, Morristown, for PlaintiffAppellee. MARY & JAMES C. YOUNG, pro se. & O P I N I O N ă Franks, J. This action on debt originated in the Sessions Court, and upon an unfavorable judgment, the defendants appealed the matter to Circuit Court. After trial, a judgment was entered which states, in pertinent part: 444 [t]he Court found the plaintiffs complaint for a non!payment of medical services provided to the defendant, James C. Young, to be well founded and supported by the overwhelming weight of the testimony of both parties, specifically:  1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1.AutoList1444 a1AutoList1 That defendant James C. Young admitted to having received the services and treatment alleged to have been provided by the plaintiff. 444 a1AutoList1 That the defendant James C. Young admitted that he had not paid for said services. 444 a1AutoList1 That the defendant James C. Young admitted that he and defendant Mary Young were husband and wife at the time of treatment by plaintiff. 444 a1AutoList1 That the defendants argument that their insurer should have paid the debt owing the plaintiff, is insufficient cause to deny judgment to plaintiff in that the defendant is liable to plaintiff for the services. The Court then entered judgment against defendants in the amount of $3,951.16, plus costs. Appellants issues on appeal are:  1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1.AutoList2444 a1AutoList2 The Trial Court committed prejudicial and reversible error by denying the appellants motion to dismiss on the grounds that the warrants and affidavits relevant to this matter were illegally and unlawfully obtained . . . 444 a1AutoList2 The Trial Court committed reversible error and prejudicial error in denying appellants request for a continuance, when the material witness who appellants had subpoenaed duces tecum, failed to appear at the trial. 444 a1AutoList2 The Trial Court committed prejudicial and reversible error by failing to advise appellants of their due process right to have a court reporter present in court to record the proceedings of this nonjury trial. The appellants issues are without merit for several reasons. First and foremost, there is no statement or transcript of evidence, and we are required to conclusively presume that the Trial Courts findings of fact are correct. Leek v. Powell, 884 S.W.2d 118 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994.) The record before us does not establish that appellants first issue was raised before the Circuit Court where the case was tried de novo, and it lacks sufficient specificity to be reviewed. As to issue No. 2, it cannot be gleaned from the record that a subpoena duces tecum was issued, nor does the record contain any basis for granting a continuance. Finally, appellants argue that the Trial Court committed reversible error by failing to advise them that they could have a court reporter present. Rule 24(c) T.R.A.P., provides that a party may submit a statement of evidence where no court reporter was present for the trial. Plaintiffs have demonstrated no prejudice, and failed to utilize the process provided in the Rules to file a narrative of the evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Trial Court and remand, with costs of the appeal assessed to appellants.  +Ã __________________________ Herschel P. Franks, J. CONCUR: ___________________________ #T\  PP#Charles D. Susano, Jr., J. #T\  PP# ___________________________ #T\  PP#D. Michael Swiney, J.#T\  P P#