IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs December 19, 2022

BENJAMIN MCCURRY v. AGNESS MCCURRY

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Washington County

No. 38147 Thomas J. Wright, Senior Judge

___________________________________

No. E2022-01708-COA-T10B-CV

___________________________________

The Appellant takes issue with the trial judge’s refusal to recuse himself from the litigation 

assigned to him pursuant to designation by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of 

Tennessee. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B Interlocutory Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Trial 

Court Affirmed and Remanded

ARNOLD B. GOLDIN,J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which D. MICHAEL SWINEY,

C.J., and ANDY D. BENNETT, J., joined.

Agness McCurry, Johnson City, Tennessee, Pro Se.1

MEMORANDUM OPINION2

In the present accelerated interlocutory appeal pursued pursuant to Rule 10B of the 

Rules of the Supreme Court of Tennessee,

3 Ms. McCurry challenges Senior Judge Thomas 

Wright’s denial of her request that he recuse himself from three cases assigned to him by 

Chief Justice Roger Page of the Tennessee Supreme Court: case No. 38147 in the 

 

1 Other parties have not participated in this appeal due to this appeal being considered solely on 

Ms. McCurry’s submissions and without oral argument.

2 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shall be designated “MEMORANDUM OPINION”, shall not be published, and shall not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.

3 Although Ms. McCurry originally sought to pursue her accelerated interlocutory appeal in the 

Supreme Court, the appeal was transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, with it noting that 

“[i]f a case is appealed to this Court that should have been appealed to another court, the case shall be 

transferred to the proper court.”

12/28/2022
- 2 -

Washington County Circuit Court, case No. 22-CV-0611 in the Washington County 

Chancery Court, and case No. 22-CV-0618 in the Washington County Chancery Court. 

We proceed to address the appeal summarily based on Ms. McCurry’s submissions alone 

and without oral argument. See Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, § 2.05 (providing that the appellate 

court may act summarily on the appeal if it determines that no answer is needed); Tenn. 

Sup. Ct. R. 10B, § 2.06 (providing that the accelerated interlocutory appeal shall be decided 

on an expedited basis and, in the court’s discretion, without oral argument).

The only order this Court may review in an appeal pursued under Tennessee 

Supreme Court Rule 10B is the trial court’s order denying the motion to recuse. Dougherty 

v. Dougherty, No. W2021-01014-COA-T10B-CV, 2021 WL 4449649, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. 

App. Sept. 29, 2021) (citing Duke v. Duke, 398 S.W.3d 665, 668 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012)). 

The general principles undergirding recusal issues are well settled:

“The right to a fair trial before an impartial tribunal is a fundamental 

constitutional right.” Bean v. Bailey, 280 S.W.3d 798, 803 (Tenn. 2009) 

(quoting State v. Austin, 87 S.W.3d 447, 470 (Tenn. 2002)). Preserving 

public confidence in judicial neutrality, however, requires more than 

ensuring that a judge is impartial in fact. Kinard v. Kinard, 986 S.W.2d 220, 

228 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). It is also important that a judge be perceived to 

be impartial. Id. In keeping with this principle, Tennessee Supreme Court 

Rule 10, Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.11 provides that “[a] judge shall 

disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which 

the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned[.]” Even when 

a judge sincerely believes that he or she can preside over a matter in a fair 

and impartial manner, recusal is nonetheless required where a reasonable 

person “in the judge’s position, knowing all of the facts known to the judge, 

would find a reasonable basis for questioning 

the judge’s impartiality.” Davis v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 38 S.W.3d 560, 564-

65 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting Alley v. State, 882 S.W.2d 810, 820 (Tenn. Crim. 

App. 1994)).

Hawthorne v. Morgan & Morgan Nashville PLLC, No. W2020-01495-COA-T10B-CV, 

2020 WL 7395918, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2020). We review the trial court’s ruling 

under a de novo standard of review. See Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10B, § 2.01.

In her motion seeking recusal and its accompanying affidavit, Ms. McCurry, who is 

proceeding pro se, placed criticism on Judge Eddie Lauderback and Chancellor John 

Rambo for the manner in which they had recused themselves in the above-cited three cases 

involving her and suggested that Judge Wright may not be impartial due to Judge 

Lauderback’s alleged role in Judge Wright’s appointment.4 She also noted that “Judge 

 

4 Curiously, in connection with her complaint about this matter, Ms. McCurry also prefaced her 
- 3 -

Wright originates from the same jurisdiction as the attorney . . . for Defendant[.] . . . 

Therefore, there is a high probability that [counsel] has had cases involving Judge Thomas 

Wright.”

As noted, Judge Wright had been designated to preside over the cases involving Ms. 

McCurry by Tennessee Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Page. Judge Wright responded 

to Ms. McCurry’s concerns by noting that Chief Justice Page’s designation of him “was 

not an action in which Judge Lauderback or Chancellor Rambo provided any input.” In 

elaborating on this explanation, he noted that

[t]hese judges recused themselves. Chancellor Rambo referred the cases to 

Judge Lauderback as the presiding judge. Apparently no other judges in the 

judicial district or nearby districts [were] able to interchange and the cases 

were referred to the Administrative Office of the Courts for designation of a 

judge by the Chief Justice. This was the correct procedure. The undersigned 

is the nearest senior judge and the logical judge for the Chief Justice to 

designate to hear these cases. Judge Lauderback and Chancellor Rambo had 

no input in the Chief Justice’s selection and designation of the undersigned.

In further explaining why there was no basis for his recusal, Judge Wright noted that he 

had neither bias nor knowledge of the cases or the parties. He also rejected Ms. McCurry’s 

reliance on the fact that one of the opposing attorneys had previously practiced before him

and was from the same geographic area, holding that this was not a ground for recusal; 

Judge Wright astutely noted that, if it was, judges could never hear cases in judicial districts 

where they are elected when local attorneys are involved. We discern no error in Judge 

Wright’s denial of Ms. McCurry’s motion for recusal and therefore affirm his decision and 

remand these cases for further proceedings.

 s/ Arnold B. Goldin 

 ARNOLD B. GOLDIN, JUDGE

 

argument with the following introductory phrase: “Although Judge Wright may appear to be ‘impartial.’”