Two requirements of review govern this instance. First, we review the “district court’s evidentiary rulings at the summary judgment stage limited to abuse of discernment.” Wright v. Farouk Sys., Inc., 701 F.3d 907, 910 (11th Cir. 2012). Under this standard, “we must affirm unless we discover that the district court has made an obvious error of judgment, or has used the incorrect legal standard.” Knight ex rel. Kerr v. Miami-Dade Cty., 856 F.3d 795, 808 (11th Cir. 2017) (interior quote marks omitted).

Second, we review the region court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, using the exact exact same standards that are legal the region court. Information. Sys. & Networks Corp. v. City of Atlanta, 281 F.3d 1220, 1224 (11th Cir. 2002). Summary judgment is suitable “if the movant suggests that there isn’t any genuine dispute as to virtually any product reality therefore the movant is eligible for judgment as being a matter of legislation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The burden shifts into the nonmoving party to exhibit that specific facts occur that raise a real problem for test.“Once the movant acceptably supports its movement” Dietz v. Continua a leggere REQUIREMENTS OF REVIEW