Defendant/Appellant appealed a speeding ticket from Benton City Municipal Court to the Circuit Court for Polk County, Tennessee (the “circuit court”). The City of Benton (the “City”) filed a motion for summary judgment which the circuit court granted on May 18, 2022. Defendant appeals and, discerning no error, we affirm.

This is a parental rights termination case. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”) filed a petition in the Juvenile Court for Knox County (“the Juvenile Court”) seeking to terminate the parental rights of Trent W. (“Father”) to his minor children Klowii W. and Mariah W. (collectively, “the Children”). After a hearing, the Juvenile Court entered an order terminating Father’s parental rights to the Children. The Juvenile Court found by clear and convincing evidence that DCS had proven the grounds of abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home, substantial noncompliance with the permanency plans, persistent conditions, and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume custody. The Juvenile Court also found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Father’s parental rights is in the Children’s best interest. Father appeals, arguing that DCS failed to prove either grounds or best interest. We find that all four grounds found by the Juvenile Court were proven by the requisite clear and convincing evidence. We further find by clear and convincing evidence, as did the Juvenile Court, that termination of Father’s parental rights is in the Children’s best interest. We affirm.

The pro se plaintiff appeals the trial court’s summary judgment dismissal of his legal malpractice action against his attorney and the attorney’s law firm. The trial court found that the action was barred by the applicable one-year statute of limitations. Because the plaintiff’s action accrued more than one year before he filed the lawsuit, we affirm.

In this compensation appeal, the employee asserts the trial court erred in granting the employer’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing her case. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm the trial court’s determinations and certify its compensation order as final.

This appeal involves the interpretation of a provision in a marital dissolution agreement obligating the father to pay for his son’s “college tuition, expenses, room and board.” The mother filed a petition for contempt and for breach of contract, seeking a judgment for over $15,000 in expenses that the father refused to pay, as he believed that they were not covered by the language of the MDA. The father filed a motion for declaratory judgment, seeking a declaration of his obligations. He asked the trial court to interpret the language of the MDA and also declare that he had fulfilled his obligations under the MDA in light of his son’s struggles in college thus far. After a two-day evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered a series of orders interpreting the language of the MDA and defining the categories of expenses that the father was obligated to pay. However, none of the trial court’s orders mention or resolve his request for termination of his obligation. As a result, we vacate the trial court’s orders and remand for the trial court to enter an order containing sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding this issue pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 52.01.

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Petitioner-Appellant Yndalecio Gaona challenges the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, arguing that the state court that convicted him of various criminal charges improperly enhanced his sentence based upon a previous uncounseled state misdemeanor conviction. He argues that because it was uncounseled, the conviction—which resulted in a sentence of time served—was unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment, and thus it was unconstitutional for the state court to use the conviction to enhance his sentence. Because the law on this point is not clearly established, we affirm the district court’s denial of Gaona’s petition.

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Daniel Ayres brought an administrative action complaining that his former employer, Weatherford U.S., L.P., had retaliated against him for engaging in protected behavior under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA). An administrative law judge (ALJ) in the Department of Labor found for Ayres and awarded him backpay, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Ayres passed away in the middle of the ALJ proceedings. The Administrative Review Board (Board) affirmed the ALJ’s awards, except for punitive damages. The Board concluded that the punitive damages claim had abated upon Ayres’s death. Ayres’s estate petitions for review of the reversal of punitive damages. Weatherford petitions for review of the Board’s ruling that it violated the STAA and the accompanying damages and fees. For the reasons that follow, we DENY both petitions.

In this termination of parental rights case, Appellant/Father appeals the trial court’s termination of his parental rights to the minor child on the grounds of abandonment by failure to visit and failure to support. Father also appeals the trial court’s determination that termination of his parental rights is in the child’s best interest. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

In this termination of parental rights case, Appellants, Mother and stepfather, filed a petition to terminate Appellee Father’s parental rights on the grounds of abandonment by failure to support and failure to visit. Father asserted the absence of willfulness as an affirmative defense. At the close of proof on grounds, the trial court orally found that abandonment by failure to support was not shown, but abandonment by failure to visit was proven. At the close of all proof, the trial court reconsidered its oral ruling on grounds and determined that Father’s failure to visit was not willful. In its written order, the trial court found that grounds for termination had not been proven and that, even if grounds existed, termination of Father’s parental rights was not in the child’s best interest. Discerning no error, we affirm.

This appeal arises from an employment termination case in which an employee of the Division of Fire Services for the City of Memphis was terminated for a second positive drug test. After receiving notice of his termination, the employee requested an appeal hearing with the City of Memphis Civil Service Commission. Following the hearing, the Civil Service Commission issued a decision affirming the termination of his employment. The employee filed a petition for the trial court to review the decision of the Civil Service Commission. The trial court found that substantial and material evidence did not support the decision and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the trial court granted the employee’s petition and remanded the matter to the Civil Service Commission. The City of Memphis appeals. We vacate the decision of the trial court and remand to the trial court for entry of an order to remand to the Civil Service Commission with instructions to issue a decision addressing certain deficiencies.