REQUIREMENTS OF REVIEW

REQUIREMENTS OF REVIEW

Two criteria of review govern this case. First, we review the “district court’s evidentiary rulings at the summary judgment stage limited to punishment of discretion.” Wright v. Farouk Sys., Inc., 701 F.3d 907, 910 (11th Cir. 2012). Under this standard, “we must affirm unless we discover that the region court has made an obvious mistake of judgment, or has used not the right appropriate standard.” Knight ex rel. Kerr v. Miami-Dade Cty., 856 F.3d 795, 808 (11th Cir. 2017) (interior quote markings omitted).

2nd, we review the region court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the exact exact same standards that are legal the district court. Information. Sys. & Networks Corp. v. City of Atlanta, 281 F.3d 1220, 1224 (11th Cir. 2002). Summary judgment is acceptable “if the movant reveals that there’s absolutely no genuine dispute as to virtually any product reality therefore the movant is eligible for judgment being a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “Once the movant acceptably supports its movement, the duty shifts into the nonmoving celebration to exhibit that specific facts occur that raise a real problem for trial.” Dietz v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 598 F.3d 812, 815 (11th Cir. 2010). If the non-movant’s proof is “not dramatically probative,” payday loans Prince George Virginia summary judgment is suitable. Stephens v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 749 F.3d 1318, 1321 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986)). All facts and reasonable inferences should be built in benefit regarding the party that is nonmoving. Urquilla-Diaz v. Kaplan Univ., 780 F.3d 1039, 1050 (11th Cir. 2015).

This Court Has Appellate Jurisdiction over Lanier’s Appeal.

We ought to first see whether we now have appellate jurisdiction over this situation. After asking the events to deal with this dilemma, we determined that Lanier’s November 29, 2016 notice of appeal had been untimely to impress through the region court’s last judgment on August 12, 2016. 9 We reserved issue of whether Lanier’s initial notice, filed on October 10, 2016 on the behalf of “Lanier Law, et that is al, perfected their appeal in the individual ability. Read More