Charles Davis v. Bay County Jail, Rick Anglin ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •          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