Petitioner, Timothy Allen Johnson, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Following our review of the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

Pro se appellant appeals the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant following a bench trial. Because we conclude that Appellant has waived all arguments by failing to file a substantially compliant brief or a transcript or statement of the evidence, we affirm.

This is a custody dispute over two minor children, P.H. and V.H. (together, “the Children”). The Children’s mother, L.A.S. (“Mother”), lives in Nevada, while the Children live primarily in Tennessee with their father, C.W.H. (“Father”), and his wife (“Stepmother”). Father is the primary residential parent, and Mother sees the Children over the summers and during their breaks from school. On June 12, 2020, Mother filed a petition to modify the permanent parenting plan and for contempt in the Hamilton County Juvenile Court (the “juvenile court”). Mother asked to be named primary residential parent. Following a three-day bench trial, the juvenile court dismissed Mother’s petition. The juvenile court determined that no material change in circumstances warranting a change in custody had occurred. Mother timely appealed to this Court. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we discern no error and affirm the juvenile court’s judgment.

This negligence action arises from the collision of Plaintiff/Appellee’s Mercedes convertible with a tractor-trailer operated by Defendant/Appellant in the scope of her employment. The trial court determined that Appellant was more than 50 percent at fault for the accident and apportioned 75 percent fault to Appellant and 25 percent fault to Plaintiff/Appellee. The trial court also determined that Defendant/Appellant employer was vicariously liable for the damages awarded. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

In this divorce action, Aaron Burnett (“Husband”) challenges the trial court’s classification and division of the parties’ assets, award of alimony in solido to Amanda Burnett (“Wife”), and permanent parenting plan (“PPP”). Husband also argues that the trial court erred in finding him in criminal contempt during the divorce trial. The PPP ordered by the court states that Husband is granted 90 days of parenting time per year, but the more specific day-to-day schedule provided in the plan allows for only about 63 days. Wife concedes that the PPP is inconsistent and also that the trial court improperly found Husband in contempt. Consequently, we vacate the day-to-day schedule in the PPP and remand for the trial court to craft a schedule that allows Husband 90 days, and we reverse the contempt finding. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed in all other respects.

A majority of the Judges of this Court in regular active service has voted for rehearing en banc of this case. Sixth Circuit Rule 35(b) provides as follows:

The effect of the granting of a hearing en banc shall be to vacate the previous opinion and judgment of this court, to stay the mandate and to restore the case on the docket sheet as a pending appeal.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED, that the previous decision and judgment of this court are vacated, the mandate is stayed and this case is restored to the docket as a pending appeal.

The Clerk will direct the parties to file supplemental briefs and will schedule this case for oral argument as soon as possible.

A pro se plaintiff filed a 543-page complaint containing improper allegations and claims. The trial court struck the complaint and ordered the plaintiff to refile. The plaintiff then filed an amended complaint of less than half the length, but containing many of the same deficiencies as the original complaint. The court again struck the offensive portions and ordered the plaintiff to refile. The court also dismissed several of the defendants because the amended complaint failed to state a claim against them for which the court could grant relief. Rather than file a second amended complaint, the plaintiff moved several times to recuse the trial judge. Having failed to file a proper complaint within the time specified, the court dismissed the case. We affirm.

The Petitioner, Raymond Watison, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief from his conviction for first degree premeditated murder. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred by denying relief on his claims alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The Petitioner argues that counsel was ineffective by (1) failing to keep out hearsay evidence at the suppression hearing regarding how the Petitioner was established as the suspect, (2) insufficiently challenging the probable cause determination in this case, (3) not calling necessary witnesses at the suppression hearing, and (4) failing to make contemporaneous objections at the trial. Additionally, the Petitioner argues that the postconviction court erred by entering a written order that contained no findings of fact or conclusions of law. We reverse the post-conviction court’s judgment and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Defendant, Tony Lee Light, was convicted in the Blount County Circuit Court of first degree felony murder committed during the perpetration of aggravated child abuse and second degree murder. The trial court merged the conviction of second degree murder into the conviction of first degree murder, and the jury chose to sentence him to life without parole. On appeal, the Defendant claims that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions and that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing the State to impeach his character. Based on our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

An inmate convicted of first-degree murder in 1999 filed this declaratory judgment action challenging the Tennessee Department of Correction’s calculation of his release eligibility date. The trial court granted the Tennessee Department of Correction’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.