Roderick Clark v. Nichols M. N.P.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Roderick Clark v. Nichols M. N.P.

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 4, 2017

Docket17-1682

StatusPublished

This text of Roderick Clark v. Nichols M. N.P. (Roderick Clark v. Nichols M. N.P.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roderick Clark v. Nichols M. N.P., (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

RODERICK CLARK, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND Petitioner, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

v. CASE NO. 1D17-1682

NICHOLS M. N. P.,

Respondent. ___________________________/

Opinion filed September 5, 2017.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus -- Original Jurisdiction.

Roderick Clark, pro se, Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner has not demonstrated that the trial court has failed to timely consider

and rule upon any motion after having that matter called up for hearing and disposition.

Petitioner has therefore failed to demonstrate an entitlement to mandamus relief. See Moore v. Corr. Med. Servs., 817 So. 2d 963, 964 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (“Absent a

showing that the trial court has failed to take action on some pending matter he has

noticed for hearing, [the petitioner] has failed to establish an entitlement to mandamus

relief.”); Smartt v. First Union Nat’l Bank, 771 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). We

DENY the petition accordingly.

LEWIS, RAY, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI