Case ID: f-appx_417/html/0879-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gary W. NASH, Beverly J. Nash, his wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., Divine Providence, Inc., d.b.a. Divine Providence Food Bank/America’s Second Harvest of Tampa Bay, William H. Miles, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-11923
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    March 14, 2011.
    T. Patton Youngblood, Jr., Youngblood Law Firm, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Mark N. Miller, Gray-Robinson, P.A., Lakeland, FL, Kristie Hatcher-Bolin, Edwin Ayers Scales, III, Edwin A. Scales, III, P.A., Key West, FL, Stacy D. Blank, Brandon Paul Faulkner, Douglas Arthur Wright, Holland & Knight, LLP, Helen Brewer Fouse, Office of the Attorney General, Tampa, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and HILL, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the grant of defendants’s/appellees’s, Publix Super Markets, Inc. (Publix), and Divine Providence, Inc., d/b/a Divine Providence Food Bank/America’s Second Harvest of Tampa Bay (Divine Providence), motions for summary judgment against plaintiffs/appellants, Gary W. Nash (Nash) and Beverly J. Nash, on their claims for malicious prosecution and loss of consortium. The claims arose from a prior criminal prosecution of Nash by the Office of State Attorney on a 161-count indictment for grand theft, dealing in stolen property, organized fraud, conspiracy to commit RICO violation, and RICO violation, of which, in a non-jury trial, Nash was found not guilty on all counts.

We have reviewed the record in this appeal, the briefs and the arguments of counsel. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      . The earlier order of the district judge, dated July 7, 2008, holding that William H. Miles was entitled to qualified immunity, and referenced on page 12 of the final order on appeal, dated March 26, 2010, is correct and affirmed as well.