Case Name: Derik HOSKINS, Appellant, v. The CITY OF MIAMI, et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2000-08-16
Citations: 766 So. 2d 410
Docket Number: No. 3D00-279
Parties: Derik HOSKINS, Appellant, v. The CITY OF MIAMI, et al., Appellees.
Judges: Before COPE, GERSTEN, and RAMIREZ, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 766
Pages: 410–410

Head Matter:
Derik HOSKINS, Appellant, v. The CITY OF MIAMI, et al., Appellees.
No. 3D00-279.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Aug. 16, 2000.
Derik Hoskins, in proper person.
Alejandro Vilarello, City Attorney, and George K. Wysong, III, and Myrna D. Bricker, Assistant City Attorneys, for ap-pellees.
Before COPE, GERSTEN, and RAMIREZ, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. Mandamus is not the proper remedy for redress of Appellant Derik Hoskins' complaints. See Davis v. City of South Bay, 433 So.2d 1364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).