In this case, which stemmed from an attack on an inmate at a county jail, the trial court granted judgment in favor of the Defendants. Among other things, the trial court concluded that the assault on the inmate was not foreseeable. We affirm.

Appellant, a former inmate with the Tennessee Department of Correction, filed a complaint against Appellee State of Tennessee in the Tennessee Claims Commission (“Commission”). Appellant asserted numerous claims based on alleged misconduct of several assistant district attorneys. The Commission granted the State’s motion to dismiss based on the Commission’s findings that Appellant’s claims were not within the Commission’s jurisdiction, and were barred by prosecutorial immunity and the applicable statute of limitations. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The employee, a safety manager for the employer, alleged she suffered injuries to her low back and neck when she tripped over a wire, causing a spool of wire to fall on her and knock her into nearby shelving. The employer disputed that the incident occurred, pointing out that the employee did not report the incident until after her employment was terminated. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court denied the employee’s request for benefits, concluding she was unlikely to prevail at trial in establishing she suffered an injury arising out of her employment. The employee has appealed. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s decision and remand the case.

Aggrieved of his Madison County Circuit Court jury convictions of aggravated assault and reckless endangerment, the defendant, Darrell Love, appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, the trial court’s exclusion of certain evidence, and the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on self-defense. Discerning no error, we affirm.

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. Denzell Russell was a passenger in a car that the East Cleveland Police stopped and searched. The police found two handguns, which resulted in a felon-in-possession charge for Russell. He argues that the search violated the Fourth Amendment. But to assert a Fourth Amendment claim, Russell must have “standing” to challenge the search. And normally a car passenger without a possessory interest in the car lacks such standing.

The government, though, failed to object to Russell’s lack of standing before the district court and raised the argument for the first time on appeal. Fourth Amendment standing, unlike Article III standing, is not jurisdictional and so it can be forfeited or waived. And Russell contends that here the government forfeited or even waived the argument. But under our precedent, the government can raise a forfeited argument for the first time on appeal and prevail if it satisfies the plain-error inquiry under Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). Because the government only forfeited its standing claim and satisfies that plain-error test, we AFFIRM.

Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his action to set aside several alleged fraudulent conveyances. Because the orders appealed do not resolve all the claims between the parties, we dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment.

Appellants seek accelerated review of a juvenile court magistrate’s denial of their motion for recusal. Because the magistrate’s decision is not subject to an accelerated interlocutory appeal under Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, § 2, we dismiss the petition and transfer the matter to the juvenile court for the juvenile judge to review the decision under Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, § 4.04 and Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-1-107.

A father has appealed from an order setting his child support obligation. Because the father did not file his notice of appeal with the clerk of the appellate court within the time permitted by Rule 4(a) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss the appeal.

This is an appeal by Wife from a final decree of divorce. After a thorough review of the record and the trial court’s order, we affirm in part and vacate in part.

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee asserts he injured his knee when a supervisor assaulted him at work. The employer denied the incident happened. In a decision on the record, the trial court denied the employee’s claim for medical and temporary disability benefits, concluding the employee had failed to prove the occurrence of a work-related incident. The employee has appealed. We affirm the trial court’s decision and remand the case.