### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Submitted on Br

iefs, August 2, 200 1 MOHAMED F. ALI, M.D., v. FREDIA MOORE (DUGGER) and DANNY (PAT) STORY Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Washington County No. 19785 Hon. Thomas J. Seeley, Jr., Circuit Judge

FILED AUGUST 21, 2001 No. E2000-02534-COA-R3-CV

The Trial Court held the

statu te of limitations had run on plaintiff’s Complaint. On appeal, we dismiss the appeal as not being timely filed.
Tenn. R. App. P.3 Appe al as of Right; Judgme

nt of the Circuit Cour

t Affirmed.

H ERSCHEL P ICKENS F RANKS , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which C HARLES D. S USANO , J R ., J., and D. M ICHAEL S WINEY , J., joined. Mohamed F. Ali, Mountain City, Tennessee, pro se. Clifton Corker, Johnson City, Tennessee, for Appellee, Fredia Moore (Dugg er).

OPINION

In this action plaintiff filed notice of appeal on September 26, 2000, appealing the Tri al C our t’s “Ord er fi led Augu st 2 5, 2 000 .” T he O rder app eal ed fr om s tat es i n it s en tir ety:

This action was finally dismissed by Order dated D ecember 9, 1999. On February 24,2000, the Court determinedthat plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside, Alter or Amend, was frivolous and without merit. The proper avenue for plaintiff to take to fur ther pursue his action is by appeal. The clerk is directed to NOT file any pleading, motion-2- or proposed order s

ubmitted by pl

aintiff, except a N

otice of Appeal,

unless plaintiff pays in full all court costs, including this Order, incur red after February 24, 2000. Fur ther, due to the unusual circumstances surrounding plaintiff and the defendan t , Fredia M oore (Dugger), the clerk’s office shall not furnish plaintiff with Dugg er’s current address, and any notation of it in the file shall be deleted. The clerk’s office shall serve Dugger with copies of any docume nts required to be served upon her. The record

establishes that plaintiff first sued the defendant on October 22, 1993, and the case was non-suited on April 30, 1997. On April 29, 1998, plaintiff refile d his complaint ag

ainst the defendant and took a voluntary non-suit on April 30, 1998. Then on April 28, 1999, he filed h

is com plaintagainst defen

dant. In an Or

der dated Dece

mber 9, 1999, the Tr

ial Court noted tha t plaintiff’s complaint filed fo r the third ti

me was not “w ithin one year of the first non-suit” and dismissed the action with prejudice.

The face of the rec

ord establi shes tha t the time for filing another complaint had expired long before plaintiff filed his third complaint. See Tenn. Code Ann. §28-1-105.

After the Court’s dismissal of the Complaint on December 9, 1999, plaintiff filed a Motion on January 7,

2000 alleging t

hat he had foll

owed the advice of his attorney, who was appointed by the Court, within which to re-file the action. On February 24, 2000, the Court denied this Motion and found the action was frivolous and without merit. However, plaintiff continue

d to file motions which he styled as Rule 59, Tenn. R. Civ. P. motions, and while the Court entered Orders denying the

motions and found them to be frivolous and without merit, the Notice of Appeal was not timely filed. Moreover, it would not bring before this Court the issues which the plaintiff attempts to

raise. The Judgment on plaintiff’s Complaint became final on February 24, 2000, and no timely appeal was perfected. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed with the cost of the cause assessed to plaintiff.

_________________________ H ERSCHEL P ICKENS F RANKS , J.