Bradley Harper v. Jim Hammond, Sheriff ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                04/16/2020
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
    AT KNOXVILLE
    Assigned on Briefs April 2, 2020
    BRADLEY HARPER v. JIM HAMMOND, SHERIFF, ET AL.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County
    No. 18C530 L. Marie Williams, Judge
    ___________________________________
    No. E2019-01247-COA-R3-CV
    ___________________________________
    This appeal follows the trial court’s entry of an order of dismissal. Because the notice of
    appeal was not timely filed, we dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
    Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed
    ARNOLD B. GOLDIN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOHN W. MCCLARTY
    and W. NEAL MCBRAYER, JJ., joined.
    Bradley Harper, Only, Tennessee, Pro se.
    R. Dee Hobbs, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the appellees, Jim Hammond and Craig
    Bodnar.
    MEMORANDUM OPINION1
    This case was initiated by the Appellant Bradley Harper, a.k.a. Dane Sayles, when
    he filed a pro se complaint in the Hamilton County Circuit Court invoking the Tennessee
    Governmental Tort Liability Act. The named defendants in Mr. Harper’s action
    subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, arguing in a supporting memorandum that Mr.
    Harper’s lawsuit was deficient for a number of reasons, including the fact that his claims
    were time-barred. On August 14, 2018, the Circuit Court dismissed Mr. Harper’s
    1
    Rule 10 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee provides:
    This Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm,
    reverse or modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal
    opinion would have no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum
    opinion it shall be designated “MEMORANDUM OPINION”, shall not be published, and
    shall not be cited or relied on for any reason in any unrelated case.
    lawsuit, holding that it was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
    Following the dismissal of his action, on August 30, 2018, Mr. Harper filed a
    motion to alter or amend. Prior to a ruling on his motion to alter or amend, Mr. Harper
    filed a document in the Circuit Court styled “Premature Notice of Appeal,” wherein he
    requested that the Circuit Court order his notice of appeal to be filed should it rule against
    him on his motion to alter or amend. The Circuit Court later entered an order denying
    Mr. Harper’s motion to alter or amend on October 3, 2018. Mr. Harper did not file a
    notice of appeal with the Clerk of this Court until July 12, 2019.
    Although Mr. Harper attempts to challenge the dismissal of his case on appeal, we
    are unable to reach the merits of his dispute. Although the issue has not been raised by
    any of the parties to this appeal, we must first consider whether this Court has subject
    matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(b). Among the pertinent
    considerations is whether the notice of appeal was timely filed:
    This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear an appeal if the notice
    of appeal is not timely filed. First Nat'l Bank v. Goss, 
    912 S.W.2d 147
    , 148
    (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Tennessee Rules of
    Appellate Procedure, a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days
    after the entry of the judgment appealed from. Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a). If the
    Appellant timely files a motion under Rule 59.01 of the Tennessee Rules of
    Civil Procedure, however, the time for appeal runs from the entry of the
    order granting or denying such motion. Tenn. R. App. P. 4(b).
    U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Tenn. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 
    410 S.W.3d 820
    , 825–26 (Tenn. Ct. App.
    2012). Here, Mr. Harper filed a motion to alter or amend, one of the motions provided
    for by Rule 59.01, and thus, the time for his appeal ran from the entry of the trial court’s
    October 3, 2018 order denying Mr. Harper’s motion to alter or amend. Clearly, his filing
    of a notice of appeal with the clerk of this court in July 2019 was untimely.
    Ostensibly, Mr. Harper has attempted to rely on the “premature” notice of appeal
    he filed in this case. That filing expressly noted, as is accurate, that Rule 4(d) of the
    Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure provides as follows: “A prematurely filed notice
    of appeal shall be treated as filed after the entry of the judgment from which the appeal is
    taken and on the day thereof.” Tenn. R. App. P. 4(d). The problem here is that there
    never was a notice of appeal filed in this Court until July 2019. The “premature” filing
    Mr. Harper evidently relies on was filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court, not with the
    Clerk of this Court,2 a point underscored by the filing itself, which requested that the
    Circuit Court order Mr. Harper’s notice of appeal to be filed if the motion to alter or
    2
    After the filing of Mr. Harper’s July 12, 2019 notice of appeal in this Court, we received a copy
    of the “premature” notice of appeal that had been filed in the Circuit Court.
    -2-
    amend was denied. Under our rules of appellate procedure, the notice of appeal must be
    filed with the Clerk of this Court. See Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a) (“In an appeal as of right to
    the . . . Court of Appeals . . . the notice of appeal . . . shall be filed with the clerk of the
    appellate court.”). Although a notice of appeal was ultimately filed with this Court, it
    was not timely. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter
    jurisdiction.
    _________________________________
    ARNOLD B. GOLDIN, JUDGE
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: E2019-01247-COA-R3-CV

Judges: Judge Arnold B. Goldin

Filed Date: 4/16/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/16/2020