Court Opinion

ID: 4249129
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-02-28 20:12:35.563856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:43:54.247085
License: Public Domain

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                         No. 1D16-1708
                 _____________________________

CHARLES DAVIS,

    Appellant,

    v.

BAY COUNTY JAIL, RICK ANGLIN,
et al.,

    Appellees.
                 _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.
Michael C. Overstreet, Judge.

                        February 28, 2018

PER CURIAM.

     Charles Davis appeals the summary judgment entered
against him. Appellees argue we lack jurisdiction to consider this
appeal, contending the order at issue was not a final order. While
appellees are correct that an order merely denying a motion for
summary judgment is not a final, appealable order, see
Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, P.A. v. W. Fla. Reg’l Med.
Ctr., 993 So. 2d 1060, 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), the order here did
more. This order concluded by saying the appellees’ summary
judgment was granted, and “that judgment be entered in
[appellees’] favor, and that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint . . . be
dismissed with prejudice.” This language is enough to establish
finality. See Hoffman v. Hall, 817 So. 2d 1057, 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA
2002) (“Where an order stated that ‘final summary judgment is
hereby entered in favor of’ a party, the language was self-
executing, did not contemplate any further judicial labor with
regard to the rights of the parties and was sufficient to establish
finality.”).

     Turning to the merits of Davis’s appeal, we conclude that after
appellees filed their summary judgment motion, Davis did not
meet his burden of demonstrating the existence of a genuine issue
of material fact. See RNR Invs. Ltd. P’ship v. Peoples First Cmty.
Bank, 812 So. 2d 561, 564 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (“Where the moving
party offers evidence to support its claim of the nonexistence of a
genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party ‘must
demonstrate the existence of such an issue or issues either by
countervailing facts or justifiable inferences from the facts
presented.’” (quoting Fleming v. Peoples First Fin. Sav. & Loan
Ass’n, 667 So. 2d 273, 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995))).

    AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and WETHERELL and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

                 _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

Charles Davis, pro se, Appellant.

Jason Vail of Jolly, Peterson & Truckenbrod, P.A., Tallahassee, for
Appellees.

                                 2