Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Gary W. Nash v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 10-11923 (2011)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Number: 10-11923 Visitors: 44
Filed: Mar. 14, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED _U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT MARCH 14, 2011 No. 10-11923 JOHN LEY Non-Argument Calendar CLERK _ D.C. Docket No. 8:07-cv-01779-EAK-TGW GARY W. NASH, BEVERLY J. NASH, his wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., DIVINE PROVIDENCE, INC., d.b.a. Divine Providence Food Bank/America’s Second Harvest of Tampa Bay, WILLIAM H. MILES, Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED ____________________________U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT MARCH 14, 2011 No. 10-11923 JOHN LEY Non-Argument Calendar CLERK ____________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:07-cv-01779-EAK-TGW GARY W. NASH, BEVERLY J. NASH, his wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., DIVINE PROVIDENCE, INC., d.b.a. Divine Providence Food Bank/America’s Second Harvest of Tampa Bay, WILLIAM H. MILES, Defendants-Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ______________________________ (March 14, 2011) Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and HILL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from the grant of defendants’s/appellees’s, Publix Super Markets, Inc. (Publix), and Divine Providence, Inc., d/b/a Divine Providence Food Bank/America’s Second Harvest of Tampa Bay (Divine Providence), motions for summary judgment against plaintiffs/appellants, Gary W. Nash (Nash) and Beverly J. Nash, on their claims for malicious prosecution and loss of consortium. The claims arose from a prior criminal prosecution of Nash by the Office of State Attorney on a 161-count indictment for grand theft, dealing in stolen property, organized fraud, conspiracy to commit RICO violation, and RICO violation, of which, in a non-jury trial, Nash was found not guilty on all counts. We have reviewed the record in this appeal, the briefs and the arguments of counsel. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the district court.1 AFFIRMED. 1 The earlier order of the district judge, dated July 7, 2008, holding that William H. Miles was entitled to qualified immunity, and referenced on page 12 of the final order on appeal, dated March 26, 2010, is correct and affirmed as well. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer