Assigned on Briefs December 20, 2016
from the Circuit Court for Lincoln County No. C1100098
Franklin L. Russell, Judge
an accelerated interlocutory appeal as of right from the
denial of a motion for recusal. Because the petition for
recusal appeal fails to comply with Tennessee Supreme Court
Rule 10B, we dismiss the appeal.
Sup. Ct. R. 10B Accelerated Interlocutory Appeal; Appeal
Emilio Cisneros, Hazel Green, Alabama, pro se appellant.
A. Isbell, Winchester, Tennessee, for the appellee, Lindsey
Jonathan C. Brown, Fayetteville, Tennessee, for the appellee,
Neal McBrayer, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which John W. McClarty and Brandon O. Gibson, JJ., joined.
NEAL MCBRAYER, JUDGE.
Emilio Cisneros ("Father") and Lindsay Dianna
Miller ("Mother") are the parents of two minor
children. See Cisneros v. Cisneros, No.
M2013-00213-COA-R3-CV, 2015 WL 7720274, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App.
Nov. 25, 2015). On December 12, 2012, the Circuit Court for
Lincoln County, Tennessee, entered an order divorcing Father
and Mother. Id. at *4. The court also named Mother
the primary residential parent. Id. at *2.
thereafter, Father filed petitions to modify child support
and custody, and Mother filed a petition for contempt based
on Father's failure to pay child support. Id.
Mother's petition resulted in Father being jailed for a
time until he paid his child support arrearage. Id.
On Father's petitions, "the trial court ruled that
Mother should remain the primary residential parent,
established a permanent injunction prohibiting Father from
having contact with Mother, imputed income to Father, and
awarded Mother attorney's fees." Id. at *7.
appealed from the judgments entered in connection with the
divorce and the initial round of post-divorce litigation.
Id. at *2-3. We consolidated the appeals, referring
to the divorce as the "first case" and the initial
round of post-divorce litigation as the "second
case." Id. at *4. One of the issues raised by
Father with respect to the first case was that the trial
judge was biased against him. Id. However, we
concluded that Father had waived the issue because he had not
filed a motion for recusal in the trial court. Id.
post-divorce litigation between Father and Mother continued,
and in what he describes as the third case, Father filed a
motion for recusal of the same judge who heard the first and
second "cases." On December 2, 2016, the trial
court entered an "order dismissing motion to
recuse" and a memorandum ...