to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action is not a substitute for a motion for summary judgment, and in ruling on such a motion, the trial court is confined to a consideration of the allegations found within the four.corners of the complaint.”). We begin our analysis1 by noting that the Personal Representatives are duly appointed legal representatives of the Estate, with the capacity to bring an action on the Estate’s behalf and charged with the obligation to take possession of Norman’s property for purposes of administration. See §§ 733.602; 733.607(1), Fla. Stat. (2011); Tennyson v. ASCAP, 477 F. App’x 608 (11th Cir.2012); Sullivan v. Sessions, 80 So.2d 706 (Fla.1955); Brake v. Murphy, 687 So.2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); cf. Disque v. Unger, 955 So.2d 1121 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (<HOLDING>). To that end, the Personal Representatives
holding that where all substantive claims are properly dismissed there is no basis for injunctive relief holding that a pro se complaint  should not be dismissed unless it appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief holding that where no colorable claim can be construed from a complaint it should be dismissed recognizing that one of those conditions for a district judge to grant leave to amend the complaint may properly be that claims contained in the original complaint but not included in the amended complaint be considered dismissed with prejudice  holding that trial court properly dismissed estates complaint for declaratory relief where outcome would be of no financial benefit to estate