Two requirements of review govern this case. First, we review the “district court’s evidentiary rulings at the summary judgment stage limited to punishment of discernment.” Wright v. Farouk Sys., Inc., 701 F.3d 907, 910 (11th Cir. 2012). Under this standard, “we must affirm unless we realize that the region court has made a definite 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 quotation markings omitted).

2nd, we review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, using the exact exact same standards that are legal the region court. Info. Sys. & Networks Corp. Burlington payday loan no credit check v. City of Atlanta, 281 F.3d 1220, 1224 (11th Cir. 2002). Summary judgment is acceptable “if the movant indicates that there’s absolutely no genuine dispute as to virtually any product reality in addition to movant is eligible for judgment as being a matter of legislation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The burden shifts into the nonmoving celebration to exhibit that specific facts occur that raise a real problem for test.“Once the movant acceptably supports its movement” Dietz v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 598 F.3d 812, 815 (11th Cir. 2010). If the non-movant’s proof is “not dramatically probative,” 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 must certanly be built in benefit regarding the nonmoving celebration. Urquilla-Diaz v. Kaplan Univ., 780 F.3d 1039, 1050 (11th Cir. 2015).

This Court Has Appellate Jurisdiction over Lanier’s Appeal.

We should first see whether we now have appellate jurisdiction over this situation. After asking the events to handle this problem, we determined that Lanier’s 29, 2016 notice of appeal was untimely to appeal from the district court’s final judgment on August 12, 2016 november. 9 We reserved issue of whether Lanier’s initial notice, filed on October 10, 2016 on the part of “Lanier Law, et al.,” perfected their appeal in the individual ability. We currently decide so it did.

We make use of two-part test to see whether a filing might be considered a notice of appeal. Rinaldo v. Corbett, 256 F.3d 1276, 1278-79 (11th Cir. 2001). First, we give consideration to if the document efficiently satisfies Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure c that is 3(‘s three-part requirement. Id. next, we ask whether the document managed to make it objectively clear the litigant meant to appeal. Id.

The inquiry that is first whether “the litigant’s action may be the practical exact carbon copy of what ․ Rule 3 requires.” Id. (quoting Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992) (alterations in initial)). Under Rule 3, a notice must (1) “specify the celebration or parties using the appeal,” (2) “designate the judgment, purchase or component thereof being appealed,” and (3) “name the court to that your appeal is taken.” Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1). These demands should be “liberally construed.” Rinaldo, 256 F.3d at 1278 (alteration in original) (quoting Smith, 502 U.S. at 247-48). Certainly, the guideline particularly states that “an appeal ought not to be dismissed ․ for failure to call a party intent that is whose attract is otherwise clear through the notice.” Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(4).

The 2nd inquiry asks whether or not the filing indicated the litigant’s intent to charm.

This intent component centers around perhaps the document “provides enough notice to many other events together with courts,” “not on the litigant’s inspiration in filing it.” Smith, 502 U.S. at 248. We now have held, for instance, that a movement for expansion of the time to file a notice of appeal should really be construed being a notice of appeal. Rinaldo, 256 F.3d at 1279-80.