Case Name: Darryl ALLMOND, Appellant, v. DALE CARSON LAW and Samantha Caldwell, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2018-01-29
Citations: 233 So. 3d 1290
Docket Number: No. 1D17-2622
Parties: Darryl ALLMOND, Appellant, v. DALE CARSON LAW and Samantha Caldwell, Appellees.
Judges: Lewis, Osterhaus, and Bilbrey, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 233
Pages: 1290–1291

Head Matter:
Darryl ALLMOND, Appellant, v. DALE CARSON LAW and Samantha Caldwell, Appellees.
No. 1D17-2622
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
January 29, 2018
Darryl Allmond, pro se, Appellant.
Michael R. D’Lugo of Wicker Smith O’Hara McCoy & Ford, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Upon the court's own motion, we find that the Initial Brief fails to comply with rule 9.210(b)(1)—(6), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure and that Appellant's references to ineffective assistance of counsel in the Initial Brief have no application to the summary final judgment entered in the civil action below. Because Appellant demonstrates no preliminary basis for reversal of the order appealed, summary affir-mance is warranted under rule 9.315, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Cabrera v. Outdoor Empire Inc., 134 So.3d 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Spencer v. Fla. Power Light/Broadspire, 141 So.3d 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
Accordingly, the summary final judgment appealed is Affirmed.
Lewis, Osterhaus, and Bilbrey, JJ., concur.