RAYVON L. BOATMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES V. CROSBY, JR., J.R. JENKINS, JIMMY C. PREVATT, ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court dismissed the appeal because the order being appealed was not a final, appealable order.
Appellant appealed an order dismissing his civil complaint without prejudice, which allowed him 30 days to amend.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appealability Of Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Rayvon Boatman has appealed an order of the circuit court dismissing without prejudice his civil complaint against various defendants employed by the State prison system. Since Boatman has attempted to appeal a non-appealable order, we dismiss the instant appeal without having to address the merits of the specific claims raised in Boatman’s complaint. See Hollingsworth v. Brown, 788 So. 2d 1078, 1079 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Benton v. Dep’t of Corrections, 782 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).
We note the underlying dismissal without prejudice provided Boatman would have 30 days within which to amend his complaint in the circuit court. It appears from the record before this court, that Boatman did in fact file an amended complaint in the Okeechobee Circuit Court.1 Regardless, Boatman’s attempt to appeal a non-appealable order is dismissed.
DISMISSED.
POLEN, C.J., GUNTHER and MAY, JJ., concur. . We are referring to Boatman’s pleading entitled "Demand for Judgment” which was filed with the Okeechobee Clerk of Court on May 11, 2001, in response to the trial court's oral pronouncements at the April 2, 2001 telephonic hearing. We simply note this pleading was filed and pass no judgment on its substantive merits, e.g., whether or not it sufficiently pled ultimate facts as mandated by Black v. Rouse, 587 So. 2d 1359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Murphy v. Wisu Props., Ltd., 895 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…es Inv. Co. v. Chelton, 388 So. 2d 1281, 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (“An order granting a motion to dismiss is not final and not appealable.”). For this reason, we dismiss this portion of the appeal without addressing the merits. See Boatman v. Crosby, 839 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Thus, for all of the foregoing reasons, the orders on review in these consolidated appeals are reversed in part, affirmed in part and dismissed in part as outlined herein. . After WISU’s notice of voluntary dismissal was filed…
Authorities Cited
- Hollingsworth v. Brown, 788 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Black v. Rouse, 587 So. 2d 1359 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Benton v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 782 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)