This appeal concerns the termination of parental rights. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for Macon County (“the Juvenile Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Zackery B. (“Father”) and Anna H. (“Mother”) to their minor child Cora W. (“the Child”). After a trial, the Juvenile Court entered an order finding by clear and convincing evidence that the grounds of wanton disregard and severe child abuse were proven against both parents. The Juvenile Court found further, also by clear and convincing evidence, that termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights is in the Child’s best interest. Mother and Father appeal. Among other things, both parents argue that their pre-incarceration conduct was not part of a broader pattern sufficient to sustain the ground of wanton disregard. Neither parent disputes the ground of severe child abuse, which was based upon the Child’s massive exposure to drugs including methamphetamine. We affirm the Juvenile Court.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Michigan State University (MSU) eliminated both its men’s and women’s swimming-and-diving teams. Members of the women’s swimming-and-diving team (“student-athletes”) sued, arguing that MSU fails to provide women athletes with equal participation opportunities as required by Title IX. The district court denied the student-athletes’ request for a preliminary injunction. We VACATE the district court’s order and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Robin Rick Manning, a Michigan prisoner proceeding pro se, moves this court for an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).

In 1985, a jury in the Saginaw County Circuit Court convicted Manning of first-degree murder, carrying a weapon with unlawful intent, and possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony. The trial court sentenced Manning to mandatory life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Michigan appellate courts affirmed Manning’s convictions. People v. Manning, 450 N.W.2d 534, 542 (Mich. 1990).

The Petitioner, Cortney R. Logan, appeals from the Davidson County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for the writ of habeas corpus. The Petitioner is serving an effective thirty-one-year sentence for convictions for attempted first degree murder and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. On appeal, he contends that the habeas corpus court erred in denying his petition. We affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

This appeal arises from a collateral attack of a tax sale of real property. The action was commenced by a pro se plaintiff against various Shelby County government entities. The plaintiff and his siblings inherited real property from their father, who died in 1992, and subsequently failed to pay property taxes for a number of years. The Shelby County Trustee’s office notified the plaintiff of the tax debt and an impending tax sale. The plaintiff did not pay the debt, and the property was sold. Several years later, the plaintiff commenced this action by filing an “‘Emergency’ Application for a Restraining Order” to prevent Defendants from “stealing” his property. After a hearing, the trial court denied the Application for a Restraining Order and dismissed the action with prejudice. This appeal followed. We affirm.

The trial court modified the divorced parties’ residential parenting schedule, increasing Father’s parenting time. Mother appeals. Discerning no error, we affirm.

In this dispute concerning the ownership of a parcel of unimproved real property, the plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action seeking to quiet title to the property at issue. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered an order ruling in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

This is a Tennessee Public Records Act case. The trial court found that Appellant willfully denied two of Appellee’s twelve public records requests, but it awarded Appellee attorney’s fees and costs incurred throughout the entire litigation. We affirm the trial court’s findings that Appellant willfully denied two of Appellee’s public records requests. However, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Appellee costs and fees incurred throughout the entire litigation. Accordingly, we vacate that portion of the trial court’s order and remand with instructions. The trial court’s order is otherwise affirmed, and Appellee’s request for appellate attorney’s fees and costs is denied.

BERNICE BOUIE DONALD, Circuit Judge. Michael Lee Johnson was indicted for unlawful imprisonment, assault of a domestic partner by strangulation and suffocation, interstate domestic violence, witness tampering, and assault, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 13, 113(a)(8), 113(a)(4), 2261(a), and 1512(b). A jury found Johnson guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to 864 months’ imprisonment, followed by four years of supervised release. Johnson now challenges his conviction and sentence. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE and REMAND.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Sandra Albright asked Dr. Carl W. Christensen to treat her opioid addiction. Christensen administered three drugs that allegedly caused Albright severe emotional and physical harm. Albright (an Ohio citizen) sued Christensen (a Michigan citizen) and his practice in federal court. Defendants would have us apply Michigan’s affidavit-of-merit and presuit-notice rules for medical-malpractice actions in this diversity action; Albright insists that her claims sound in negligence and that these rules do not apply in the federal courts. We must confront two well-known cases—Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), and Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965)—to resolve this classic civil-procedure conundrum. We agree with Defendants that Albright has asserted a medical-malpractice claim. Hanna, however, requires us to hold that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure conflict with Michigan’s affidavit-of-merit and presuit-notice requirements. These state rules therefore do not apply in diversity cases in federal court. Because the district court mistakenly invoked Erie and applied the presuit-notice rule in Albright’s case, we REVERSE and REMAND.