1 According to his affidavit, the defendant’ s correct name is Richard Keny on. 1 

# FILED Novemb er 4, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF AP PEALS OF

TENNESSEE, WESTE RN SECTION AT JACKS ON

_______________________________________________________ ) PAUL F ARNSWORTH

a/k/a RONNI

E ) Lake County

Circuit Court BRADFI ELD , ) No. 97-7590 ) Plaintiff

/Appella nt. ) ) VS. ) C.A. No. 02A01-9707-CV-00145 ) RICHARD KENYA, et al , ) ) Defend ants/Appe

llees. )

)

______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

______________________________________________________________________________

The plaintiff, Paul Farnsworth a/k/a Ronnie Bradfield, sued de fendants Richard Kenya, 1 S tephen D otson and t wo John Doe

defenda nts. The c omplaint a

llegesthat Plaint

iff is a n inmate at the Lake County Regional Correctional Facility (LCRCF), RichardKenyon is identified as an employ

ee and Ste phen Dots on as the a ssociate warden at LCRCF. The complaint alleges that P laintiff was giv en permi ssion to mar ry while inc arcer

ated, we dding pla

ns were formulat ed but, within less than 24 hours prior to the wedding, he was advised that the wedding was cancelled. The defenda

nts filed a

motion to dis miss wit

h sup porting affidavit which the trial court tre ated as a

motion for

summary judgmen t pursuan t to Rule 12. 02 T.R.C.P. According to the aff

idavit of Richard Keny on, he is the chaplain at LCRCF. Prior to the wedding, it was discovered that the proposed bride, Wanda Stinson, had completeda visitation form in which she statedshe was Plaintiff’s half sister. In addition, the plaintiff’s records indica ted that he was ma

rried to a woman na

med Tammy

Williams. Attache d to the af fidavit a s exhibits were a visitation applica tion bear ing a sig nature o f Wanda Stinson and li sting he r relati onship to in

mate as half sister; copies of the prisoner’s permanent visitation record showing thirteen visits by Wanda2

Stinson indicating her relation a s half sister and one by Ta mmy Williams indicating a relation as wife. Further attached as an exhibit to the

affida vit is a memorandum from associate warden Dotson to the pla intiff asfollows:

In reviewing y our plans to marry Ms. Wanda Stinson on Sa tu rd ay, February

17, 1996 (which had earlier been approved), we ha ve di sc ov er ed a s ig ni fi ca nt di sc re pa nc y. Ms. Stinson is shown o n h er visiting application as y our sister, she is liste d i n TO MIS (LI MM) as your sister a

nd she has been signing the visitor log as your sister each time she has visited. There is also an ol d visitatio n applica tion in you file lis ting a Ta mmy Williams as your

wife thou gh she isnot on your curr ent appr oved list. As a resul t of th is new infor mati on th e marri age scheduled for February 17, 1996 is disapproved. Prior to you obtaining appr oval for this marriage you will be require d to provide C haplain K eny on with adequa te proof that you a

re n o longe

r married to Tammy

Williams and that Ms. Stin son is not in any way related to you. It will be your responsibility to notify

Ms. Stinson of the wedding cancellation. The affidavit further states that the plaintiff has not provided the documentation re quested in the memorandum.

In response

to the motion, Plaintiff filed an unsworn document which he designated as an affidavit. This unsworndocument states that Plaintiff was neve r marrie d to Tammy

Williams and is not related to Ms. Stinson. The trial court granted summary judgmen t and Plain

tiff appe als. The record before us revea ls that, prior to entry

of the order granting summary judgmen t, the plaintiff filed a motion to am end the co mplaint along with a proposed amendment which purports to add additional defendants and a dditional ca uses of action. Once a responsive pleading has been filed, a party may amend only

by written

consent of the adverse party or by leave of court. Rule 15.01 T.R.C.P. The grant or denial of such a motion is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Wilson v. R icciardi , 778 S.W.2d 45 0 (Tenn. App. 1989 ); Fann v. City of Fairview , 905 S.W.2d 16 7 (Tenn. App. 1995 ). Acco rding to the rec ord befo

re us, the trial cou rt did notrule on the motion to amendthe compl aint. An a ppeal to t his Court lies from a final judg ment. Rule 3 T.R.A.P. The order appealed from is not a fi nal judg me nt as the motion to ame nd is still3

pending in the tria

l court, n or has it b een made final pur suant to Rul e 54.02 T. R.C.P. The appeal is dismissed an d the cost s are ta xed to the a

ppellant , Paul Fa

rnsworth a/k/a Ro nn ie Br ad fi el d, fo r w hi ch ex ec ut io n m ay i ss ue if ne ce ss ar y.

____________________________________ FAR MER , J.

____________________________________ CRAWFORD, P.J., W.S.

____________________________________ LI LL ARD, J.