STATE OF TENNESSEE EX REL. JAMES FREDERICK ROBERTS
ELIZABETH DALE CRAFTON
Session February 14, 2017
from the Juvenile Court for Shelby County No. W8928 Dan H.
Notice of Appeal filed by James Frederick Roberts
("Father") states that Father is appealing from the
February 1, 2016 order of the Juvenile Court for Shelby
County ("the Juvenile Court"). The February 1, 2016
order, however, is not a final judgment, and the case remains
pending in the Juvenile Court. As such, we lack jurisdiction
to consider this appeal, and it is dismissed without
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed
Frederick Roberts, Memphis, Tennessee, pro se appellant.
Jason R. Ridenour, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee,
Elizabeth Dale Crafton.
Herbert H. Slatery, III, Attorney General and Reporter; and
M. Cameron Himes, Assistant Attorney General, for the
appellee, State of Tennessee.
MICHAEL SWINEY, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which J. STEVEN STAFFORD, P.J., W.S., and KENNY W. ARMSTRONG,
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
MICHAEL SWINEY, CHIEF JUDGE
appeals the February 1, 2016 order of the Juvenile Court,
which reconfirmed the October 20, 2015 order of the Juvenile
Court. The Juvenile Court ruled upon several motions in the
October 20, 2015 order, but it did not rule upon Father's
motion to modify child support. Father's motion to modify
was continued. Father's motion to modify had not yet been
heard at the time of entry of the February 1, 2016 order and,
thus, the February 1, 2016 order was not a final appealable
hearing was held on Father's motion to modify, and on
April 29, 2016 the Magistrate entered its findings and
recommendations. The State then filed a request for a hearing
before the judge of the April 29, 2016 findings and
recommendations of the Magistrate, as it had the right to do.
The record reveals, and the parties confirmed during oral
argument before this Court, that to date the Juvenile Court
has not yet ruled upon the State's request for a
rehearing of the April 29, 2016 findings and recommendations
of the Magistrate. As such, the April 29, 2016 order is not a
final judgment is one that resolves all the issues in the
case, 'leaving nothing else for the trial court to
do.' " In re Estate of Henderson, 121
S.W.3d 643, 645 (Tenn. 2003) (quoting State ex rel.
McAllister v. Goode, 968 S.W.2d 834, 840 (Tenn. Ct. App.
1997)). "[A]ny order that adjudicates fewer than all the
claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the
parties is not enforceable or appealable and is subject to
revision at any time before entry of a final judgment
adjudicating all the claims, rights, and liabilities of all
parties." Tenn. R. App. P. 3(a). Our Supreme Court has
explained: "Unless an appeal from an interlocutory order
is provided by the rules or by statute, appellate courts have
jurisdiction over final judgments only." Bayberry
Assocs. v. Jones, 783 S.W.2d 553, 559 (Tenn. 1990)
there is no final judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to
consider this appeal. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal
without prejudice to the filing of a new appeal once a final
judgment has been entered. Costs on appeal are taxed one-half
to the appellant, James Frederick Roberts; and one-half to
the appellee, the State of Tennessee, for which execution may
issue if necessary.