JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Emergency medical personnel in Southfield, Michigan, pronounced Timesha Beauchamp dead when she was still alive. Beauchamp was placed in a body bag and transported to a funeral home, where an embalmer discovered that she was not dead. Beauchamp was hospitalized and died about six weeks later. Howard Linden, the administrator of Beauchamp’s estate, sues the City of Southfield (the “City”) and individual emergency medical personnel for their actions, which he says violated Beauchamp’s constitutional rights. The district court found that Linden failed to plead a constitutional violation and accordingly granted the defendants-appellees’ motion to dismiss Beauchamp’s claims. Because the individual defendants-appellees in this case are entitled to qualified immunity, and because the City is not liable for any constitutional violation, we affirm the district court on alternative grounds.

The appellant filed a notice of appeal more than thirty days from the date of entry of the order from which the appellant is seeking to appeal. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

Because the order appealed from does not constitute a final appealable judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

In this interlocutory appeal, the employer appeals the trial court’s order instructing it to provide the employee a panel of orthopedic physicians. The employee was injured in an accident while driving a company-owned vehicle. Prior to the accident, the employee had been at work, sorting his schedule for the day, when he suffered intestinal issues. Due to an unfortunate incident, the employee decided to return home to shower and change before completing sales calls later that day. On the way to his home, while in the company-owned vehicle, he was involved in a single vehicle accident. His employer denied that the accident occurred in the course and scope of his employment, asserting accidents on the way to and from work are not compensable. The trial court determined that this case was an exception to the general rule because the employee was in a company-provided vehicle and was not on a personal errand. The employer has appealed. After careful consideration of the entire record, we affirm the court’s determination and remand the case.

The appellant, Kathy Delores Horton (prospectively D/B/A A-Team Bail Bond Company, LLC), appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of her petition to operate a new bail bond company. The appellant asserts that the trial court erred in denying her petition because she had the requisite two years of experience working as a qualified agent. The appellant also raises a challenge regarding the en banc panel, the denial of a claim concerning ex parte communications, and an equal protection claim. Following our review, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the appellant’s petition, as well as her other claims.

This is an eminent domain case in which the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Transportation (“the State”) condemned two portions of the defendant’s eighteen-acre property in Shelby County. Prior to a jury trial to determine the fair market value of the condemned property, the State filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of or reference to a prior sale of a portion of the defendant’s real property to a neighboring fireworks business. The State argued that the previous sale was not an arm’s-length transaction or a comparable sale. The trial court granted the State’s motion in limine, excluding the prior sale from the jury’s consideration. The defendant has appealed. Determining that the defendant has failed to properly cite to the record in its appellate brief or provide us with a sufficient record on appeal, we conclude that the defendant has waived its challenge to the trial court’s exclusion of evidence. We therefore affirm the trial court’s order.

This is a wrongful-death health care liability action against a skilled nursing facility, the Tennessee State Veterans’ Home in Clarksville (“TSVH-Clarksville”), which is owned and operated by the State of Tennessee. The claimant, Linda Black (“Claimant”), is the surviving spouse of Robert Junious Black, deceased, who was a resident of TSVHClarksville from December 16, 2016, through January 9, 2017. Claimant asserted that TSVH-Clarksville proximately caused Mr. Black’s death by failing to monitor and report his symptoms under the applicable standard of care. In particular, Claimant alleged that the staff at TSVH-Clarksville (1) failed to follow Mr. Black’s care plan for risk of dehydration; (2) failed to prevent Mr. Black from developing a urinary tract infection; (3) failed to notify Mr. Black’s physician of a significant changes in his clinical status; and (4) failed to properly assess Mr. Black. Following a two-day bench trial, the Claims Commissioner found that Claimant failed to establish a health care liability claim because, inter alia, the State complied with the applicable standards of care and Claimant failed to establish causation. This appeal followed. We affirm.

In this interlocutory appeal, the workers’ compensation insurer questions the trial court’s refusal to consider its motion for declaratory judgment and asserts it should be dismissed from the case because the employee was unable to establish a date of injury within its policy period at the expedited hearing. The employee filed a petition for benefit determination alleging a date of injury within the policy period and testified to that date of injury at the expedited hearing. The insurer filed a motion for declaratory judgment because other documentation admitted into evidence suggested other possible dates of injury, some of which were outside the policy period. The trial court determined that while the employee had not shown he was likely to establish the date alleged in his petition at trial was the correct date of injury, he had shown he was likely to prevail in proving that he suffered an injury at work and reported it timely. As such, the court ordered the employer to provide a panel. The trial court declined to consider the motion for declaratory judgment, stating that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction and that, even if it did, the matter was not ripe for determination. Upon carefully considering the record, the relevant precedent, and the arguments of counsel, we affirm the trial court’s order and remand the case.

CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. Wilbert Smith was convicted of committing firearm and drug-related offenses. Most of the incriminating evidence was discovered during a search of Smith’s vehicle following a stop by law enforcement. Smith believes the search violated the Fourth Amendment, meaning the evidence should have been suppressed. We agree with the district court that there was reasonable suspicion to support an investigatory stop of Smith’s car and, as a result, that the search was lawful. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Smith’s motion to suppress.

Petitioner, Robert Wayne Garner, appeals from the Wayne County Circuit Court’s summary denial of his second petition for habeas corpus relief, in which he challenged the sufficiency of the felony murder indictment under which he was convicted. Petitioner argues on appeal that the habeas corpus court erred in failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in denying relief. After review, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.