NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. Marc Crawford died in Kentucky’s prisons less than a month after police arrested him. His widow, Dawn Crawford, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of his estate. She claims multiple state officials and private companies failed to provide Marc with medical treatment while he was in their care.

This appeal is not about the state officials and private companies that directly rendered (or did not render) medical care for Marc while he was in state custody. Instead, it is about defendant James Erwin, then Kentucky’s Acting Commissioner of the Department of Corrections. Dawn’s complaint asserted, under a theory of supervisory liability, that Erwin violated Marc’s Eighth Amendment1 right to be free from “cruel and unusual punishments.” Erwin moved to dismiss the claim, asserting qualified immunity. Dawn then amended her complaint, and Erwin filed an updated motion to dismiss. The district court rejected Erwin’s qualified immunity defense and denied his motion. Erwin appealed. We REVERSE and REMAND the case with instructions that the district court dismiss the claims against Erwin.

The Petitioner, Unjolee Moore, filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the Hamilton County Criminal Court, claiming that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the post-conviction court filed an order denying relief, and the Petitioner filed a “motion to reconsider.” The post-conviction court granted the motion, vacated its order denying relief, and reopened the proof. Subsequently, the post-conviction court filed a second order denying relief. On appeal, the Petitioner maintains that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel. The State argues that this appeal should be dismissed because the Petitioner’s notice of appeal was untimely. The State also argues that the timely filing requirement should not be waived and that even if this court waives timely filing, this court should disregard the evidence presented at the second evidentiary hearing because it is not part of the record. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the Petitioner’s notice of appeal was not untimely and that the evidence from the second evidentiary hearing is properly before us. However, we also conclude that the post-conviction court correctly denied the petition for post- conviction relief. Accordingly, the judgment of the post-conviction court is affirmed.

The petitioner, Dewey Burton, Jr., appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, which petition challenged his Knox County Criminal Court Jury conviction of aggravated child neglect, alleging that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Discerning no error, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

This interlocutory appeal arises from a discovery dispute concerning certain communications between the employer’s attorney and the nurse case manager assigned to the employee’s claim by a third-party administrator. The trial court issued an order instructing the employer to respond to the employee’s discovery requests and provide a copy of the nurse case manager’s records to the employee, and the employer has appealed. We affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case.

This appeal involves the termination of a father’s parental rights. The child was placed into the custody of the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) in May 2019. DCS subsequently filed a petition to terminate the father’s parental rights in the Hamblen County Juvenile Court (“Juvenile Court”). Following trial, the Juvenile Court entered an order terminating the father’s parental rights to the child, upon its finding by clear and convincing evidence that the father had failed to manifest an ability and willingness to parent the child, that returning the child to the father’s custody would pose a risk of substantial harm to the child’s psychological welfare, and that termination of the father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Juana Dominga Ramos Rafael applied for asylum and withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a) & 1231(b)(3). The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied her claims and she appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA dismissed her appeal, and she petitions this court for review. We DENY the petition.

PER CURIAM. Western Michigan University, a public university, requires student- athletes to be vaccinated against COVID-19, but it considers individual requests for medical and religious exemptions on a discretionary basis. Sixteen student-athletes applied for religious exemptions. The University ignored or denied their requests and barred them from participating in any team activities. The student-athletes then sued, alleging, among other things, that University officials violated their free exercise rights. The district court preliminarily enjoined the officials from enforcing the vaccine mandate against plaintiffs. Now, the officials ask us to stay the injunction and proceedings in the district court pending appeal. Although it is a close call, because the free exercise challenge will likely succeed on appeal, the factors considered in granting a stay favor the student-athletes. Accordingly, we decline to issue a stay.

The Defendant, Rufus Stevens, was convicted of aggravated rape, and the trial court sentenced him to serve eighteen years. On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court should have granted his motion to dismiss the indictment because the statute of limitations had run on the offense. The Defendant also contends that the trial court erroneously limited his questioning during voir dire and that it should have granted his motion to suppress several items of evidence. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

The Petitioner, Prentis S. Lee, filed a petition for post-conviction relief challenging his conviction for two counts of rape resulting in a ten-year sentence. The post-conviction court denied relief, and the Petitioner appeals. On appeal, the Petitioner alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to properly explain the elements of two additional counts of rape in a superseding indictment. After our review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court denying the Petitioner relief.

This is an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief that challenges the constitutionality of Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-19-142, which criminalizes the publication of false statements opposing a political candidate. The complaint was filed by a political campaign committee that engages in direct advocacy for and against political candidates. The defendants, the Tennessee Attorney General and the District Attorney General for the 20th Judicial District of Tennessee, contended the action should be dismissed, inter alia, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the campaign committee lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statute. The trial court found that the committee had standing because it faced a credible threat of prosecution and, acting upon the campaign committee’s motion for summary judgment, the trial court held that Tenn. Code Ann. § 2- 19-142 contravenes the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 19 of the Tennessee Constitution. The court also awarded the campaign committee its attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(c) as the prevailing party. We have determined the campaign committee failed to establish that it had standing to challenge the constitutionality of Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-19-142; therefore, we hold that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to rule on the matter. For these reasons, we vacate the judgment of the trial court, including the award of attorney’s fees to the campaign committee, and remand with instructions to dismiss.