Memphis events scheduled to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr.'s life and legacy include Volunteer Memphis' 2024 MLK Days of Service, which will take place between Jan. 11-15 and include a youth and education day and a community clean up. King Day at the National Civil Rights Museum will be celebrated on Jan. 15 with free admission to the site. The museum also will accept donations of money and food for the Mid-South Food Bank and Vitalant will host a blood drive. Also on Monday, the Memphis Grizzlies, National Civil Rights Museum, City of Memphis and Shelby County will host the 22nd Annual Martin Luther King Jr. Celebration Game as the culmination of other events, which include a community service day and a panel on the intersection of race and sport.

The Board of Judicial Conduct issued a public reprimand for Rutherford County Judge Toby Gilley on Jan. 4. The board found that Gilley violated Rule of Judicial Conduct 2.9(C) when he used an online calculator to determine the value of property at issue in a case before him, and used the information to question a witness. The rule prohibits judges from independently investigating facts. The board noted that Gilley accepted the reprimand, took full responsibility and acknowledged that resorting to extrajudicial information is inconsistent with the proper role of a judge. Read the reprimand here.

A nonpartisan watchdog group has asked the U.S. House of Representatives' Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) to investigate Tennessee Congressman Andy Ogles, alleging more than $1 million of discrepancies in financial disclosures he filed with the House, reports News Channel 5. The Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed the complaint this week noting that Ogles claimed to have personally loaned $320,0000 to his 2022 campaign for Congress, but that his financial reports “do not disclose assets that would allow him to make this loan." The Hill says it reached out for Ogles for a comment.

In this divorce appeal, the husband challenges the trial court’s classification of real estate as marital property. Following a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. After being arrested for public intoxication, Timmy Mosier resisted being escorted to the booking area of the Crockett County Jail. In response, Crockett County Deputy Joseph Evans pulled Mosier to the ground, which he hit head-first. Mosier brought federal civil-rights and state-law tort claims against Evans and Crockett County. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the civil-rights claims and their partial motion to dismiss the negligence claims. Mosier argues that the district court erred in granting each of those motions. For the reasons below, we AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. In late 2019, William Ashford (“Ashford”), a police officer employed by the University of Michigan-Dearborn (“UM-D”), spoke with a reporter at The Detroit Times about his concerns that the UM-D police department was mishandling a student’s allegation that one of her professors had sexually assaulted her. After his supervisors at the University, including then-Vice Chancellor Jeffrey Evans (“Evans”) and UM-D Police Chief Gary Gorski (“Gorski”), learned that he had taken his thoughts about the case to the media, they launched an inquiry into his actions in November 2019. At the conclusion of their investigation, UM-D suspended Ashford for ten days without pay. Ashford sued UM-D, the University of Michigan, Evans (in his individual and official capacities) and Gorski (in his individual and official capacities), bringing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 First Amendment claim1 that he had been unconstitutionally retaliated against for engaging in protected speech. Ashford sought to have the suspension removed from his employment record, as well as monetary damages.

The defendants argued in a motion for summary judgment that Ashford’s suit against the university and its officers in their official capacities was barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, and that the officers in their individual capacities were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court denied their motion with respect to both sovereign and qualified immunity. In this interlocutory appeal, the defendants ask this court to reverse the district court’s decision. We AFFIRM the district court’s ruling on sovereign and qualified immunity.

Plaintiff’s attorneys appeal the trial court’s imposition of sanctions against them in the amount of $68,617.28 and the denial of their second motion to disqualify the trial court judge. We affirm the trial court’s discretionary decision to impose sanctions, but we vacate the amount of sanctions awarded and remand for the trial court to calculate the reasonable amount of monetary sanctions in keeping with the procedures and considerations outlined in this opinion. We have determined that Plaintiff’s attorneys’ issue regarding the trial court’s denial of their second motion to recuse is moot. Finally, we decline to award attorney’s fees on appeal.

In this action initiated by the mother to modify the parties’ permanent parenting plan for their minor child, the trial court limited the father’s co-parenting time to include no overnight visitation with the child after finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the father had committed domestic abuse against two women whom he had previously dated. The trial court relied on Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-406 to restrict the father’s parenting time based on its determination that the father’s acts of domestic violence and hostility toward women had a negative effect on his ability to effectively parent the minor child. The father appealed, but this Court dismissed that appeal because the trial court’s order was not a final judgment. See McDonald v. Coffel, No. E2021-00460-COA-R3-CV, 2021 WL 4958475 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2021). On remand, the trial court addressed all pending matters and entered a final judgment, keeping in place the residential coparenting schedule limiting the father’s parenting time to exclude overnight visitation. The father has again appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by denying him overnight co-parenting time and by relying on Tennessee Code Annotated § 36-6-406. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm.

The plaintiff filed an action for breach of contract and fraud against his former attorneys and the attorneys’ law firm. The defendants moved for a judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted, and that the action was untimely. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion, and, having determined that the plaintiff’s action is untimely under Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-3-104(c)(1), we affirm.

While a prior lawsuit was still pending on appeal, the Plaintiff filed a nearly identical lawsuit. The trial court dismissed this second suit based on res judicata. Although the second suit was not barred by res judicata because the first suit was not final for res judicata purposes, we nevertheless affirm the dismissal on the basis of the prior suit pending doctrine.