RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Dr. Thomas Heyd served as the Chief Medical Officer of the prison where Jamal Murray was previously incarcerated and was also Murray’s treating physician. During his time in prison, Murray suffered from a condition known as deep- vein thrombosis, which, in Murray’s case, involved the formation of venous blood clots in his legs. Murray relied on the medication Coumadin to abate his condition. After many weeks passed with inadequate monitoring and the prescribing of too low a dosage of Coumadin, Murray suffered from a cerebral blood clot that has left him permanently blind.

Murray timely brought an Eighth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Dr. Heyd for deliberate indifference to Murray’s serious medical needs. Dr. Heyd sought qualified immunity in a motion for summary judgment, which the district court denied. He now seeks a review of that ruling through the present interlocutory appeal. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court’s determination that Dr. Heyd is not entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Cardinal Health, Inc., is one of several defendants named in the multitude of ongoing state and federal lawsuits against opioid manufacturers, distributors, and dispensers seeking damages related to the nation’s opioid epidemic. Cardinal Health sought defense costs under its insurance policies with National Union Fire Insurance (“National Union”), which has continually reserved its right to deny coverage. After Cardinal Health brought a declaratory action in Ohio state court, National Union removed the case to federal court, seeking relief pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act. The district court declined to exercise jurisdiction and granted Cardinal Health’s motion to remand to state court. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm. I

A Shelby County jury convicted the defendant, Teresa Sumpter, for the Class A felony of theft of property valued over $250,000 and for the Class B felony of money laundering. The trial court imposed an effective sentence of sixty years to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction and ordered the defendant pay $373,412.77 in restitution. The defendant filed this timely appeal, challenging the evidence supporting her theft conviction and the trial court’s ruling allowing the defendant’s prior theft convictions to be entered into evidence. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Brett A. Patterson, filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis in the Montgomery County Circuit Court, contending that newly discovered evidence revealed that a vial of the victim’s blood was broken during transportation to the crime laboratory with other items of evidence, and the blood spilled onto the other evidence. The Petitioner further contended a “tow-in receipt” for a vehicle the Petitioner had been driving revealed that the State had obtained certain items of evidence prior to the issuance of a search warrant. Additionally, the Petitioner contended that the statute of limitations for filing the error coram nobis petition should be tolled. After an evidentiary hearing, the coram nobis court denied the petition. On appeal, the Petitioner challenges the coram nobis court’s ruling. Based upon our review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the coram nobis court.

The Defendant-Appellant, Jimmy Evan Milstead, was convicted by a Hardin County criminal court jury of unlawful possession of a weapon, driving on a revoked license, and evading arrest. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in 1) failing to suppress a rifle discovered in the car that the Defendant was driving; and 2) in admitting the rifle after the rifle was left in the Defendant’s car for 26 days in an impound lot. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

Defendant, John David Grant, appeals from the Robertson County Circuit Court’s revocation of his effective six-year community corrections sentence for his aggravated assault and vandalism of property convictions. On appeal, he contends that his counsel at the revocation hearing provided ineffective assistance. Having reviewed the entire record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The pro se petitioner, William Eblen, appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus by the Circuit Court for Lake County, arguing the trial court erred in summarily dismissing his petition. He insists his sentence should have expired, but the Tennessee Department of Correction “erased” sentence reduction credits he had earned. The State contends the trial court properly dismissed the petition. Upon our review of the record, the applicable law, and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the ruling of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Jessie Dotson, appeals the post-conviction court’s denial of his post- conviction petition, in which he challenged his six convictions for first degree premeditated murder and three convictions for attempted first degree murder and his resulting sentences of death for each of the first degree murder convictions plus 120 years. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal; (2) the Administrative Office of the Courts (“AOC”) and the Chief Justice of the Tennessee Supreme Court improperly vacated the post-conviction court’s orders granting the Petitioner’s request for funding of experts; (3) the convictions and death sentences were the result of juror misconduct; (4) the State and the trial court committed various errors; (5) the Petitioner’s convictions and death sentences and Tennessee’s execution method are unconstitutional; and (6) cumulative error warrants relief. Upon reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs and oral arguments, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This is a premises liability case arising from injuries sustained by Appellant Anthony Walker when he attempted to mow a section of ground within the common area controlled by Appellee, Rivertrail Crossing Homeowner’s Association. The trial court granted Appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Discerning no error, we affirm

Plaintiffs filed this declaratory judgment action seeking a binding judicial interpretation of a contract executed by the three defendants. Plaintiffs were not parties to the contract, nor did their complaint allege that they were third-party beneficiaries of it. The three defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim based on lack of standing, which the trial court granted. The plaintiffs appeal. We affirm and remand for further proceedings.