view all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and must draw all permissible inferences from the submitted affidavits, exhibits, interrogatory answers, and depositions in favor of that party. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505; Vann v. City of N.Y., 72 F.3d 1040, 1048-49 (2d Cir.1995). Notably, “the trial court’s task at the summary judgment motion stage of litigation is carefully limited to discerning whether there are genuine issues of material fact to be tried, not deciding them. Its duty, in short, is confined at this point to issue-finding; it does not extend to issue-resolution.” Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs. Ltd., 22 F.3d 1219, 1224 (2d Cir.1994); see Donahue v. Windsor Locks Board of Fire Comm’rs, 834 F.2d 54, 58 (2d Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). B. As to the Plaintiffs Discrimination Claims
holding that a probable cause determination is appropriate for summary judgment where there are no genuine issues of material fact and no credibility issues holding that under florida law a court hearing a case on a motion for a summary judgment can only consider those issues raised by the pleadings holding that on a motion for summary judgment the court cannot try issues of fact it can only determine whether there are issues to be tried holding that the function of the trial court on a motion for summary judgment is to determine whether issues of fact exist and not to decide the merits of the issues themselves holding that when there are no genuine issues of material fact summary judgment is appropriate