Antuan Davis v. the Geo Group, Inc.

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT

ANTUAN DAVIS,
Appellant,

v.

THE GEO GROUP, INC.,
Appellee.

No. 4D2025-2061

[May 27, 2026]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm
Beach County; Scott Kerner, Judge; L.T. Case No.
502023CA006580XXXXMB.

Antuan Davis, South Bay, pro se.

Alyssa Mara Reiter of Wicker Smith O’Hara McCoy & Ford, P.A., Fort
Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises out of a negligence suit brought by the appellant, a
prison inmate, against the appellee, the corporation that operates the
prison where the appellant was housed. He challenges the summary
judgment entered for the appellee. We affirm.

The summary judgment hearing was held via remote technology. The
appellant argues he was not able to meaningfully participate in the hearing
due to glitches with the system. He purportedly raised this issue in a post-
judgment motion for relief from judgment, but before the trial court could
rule on the motion, he filed his notice of appeal. The trial court then issued
an order deferring ruling on the motion pending resolution of the appeal.
The trial court further provided that an affirmance on appeal would not
moot the issue, which could be considered on remand. The appellant has
not provided the motion, any response, or a hearing transcript.
Furthermore, the appellant’s reply brief acknowledges that the trial court
should be the court of first instance to consider his due process argument.
Under these circumstances, we affirm.
We also affirm as to the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on the
merits. The appellant’s initial brief did not dispute one of the grounds for
the court’s ruling, namely that he failed to exhaust administrative
remedies. That provides an independent basis for affirmance. See, e.g.,
Brannon v. State, 396 So. 3d 420, 422 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024) (holding that
appellant was not entitled to a reversal based on one of the grounds for
dismissal of his motions where he failed to address the other ground relied
on by trial court). Further, the record supports the trial court’s
determination that the appellant failed to establish a genuine issue of
material fact as to the appellee’s actual or constructive knowledge of a
dangerous condition.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, GERBER and LOTT, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.

2