Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): CURIAM. Having considered the appellant’s response to this Court’s show cause order, dated June 30, 2008, we dismiss this appeal. The trial court’s order does not appear to be final as it treated the appel lant’s motion as a rule 3.850 motion and dismissed it without prejudice to file a proper rule 3.850 motion. Therefore, the trial court’s order is a nonappealable, non-final order. See Lee v. State, 939 So.2d 154, 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (<HOLDING>); Williams v. State, 884 So.2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the dismissal of a complaint ordinarily is a nonfinal nonappealable order since amendment generally is available while dismissal of the entire action ordinarily is final (B) holding dismissal without prejudice to refile a facially sufficient motion is a nonappealable nonfinal order (C) holding that an order that determines only the right to attorneys fees without setting the amount is a nonappealable nonfinal order (D) holding borough could not appeal dismissal of complaint without prejudice because  dismissal without prejudice is comparable to a nonsuit under the former practice of lavf  (E) holding that an order granting a motion or application to compel arbitration is nonappealable because it is not listed in the uaa arbitration provision and because it is not a final order
Output (English): holding borough could not appeal dismissal of complaint without prejudice because  dismissal without prejudice is comparable to a nonsuit under the former practice of lavf