method may inadvertently result in pain does not establish the sort of ‘objectively intolerable risk of harm’ necessary to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. Id. at *2 (quoting Baze, 553 U.S. at 50,128 S.Ct. 1520). After fully reviewing Pardo’s challenges to lethal injection and examining the record upon which he relies, we deny Pardo’s constitutional challenges to Florida’s lethal injection protocol because his allegations are based primarily on speculation and conjecture. In this way, Pardo’s claim falls short of the heavy burden of affirmatively showing that Florida’s lethal injection protocol in effect is sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering, or that it will result in a substantial risk of serious harm. See Baze, 558 U.S. at 50, 128 S.Ct. 1520 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s
holding that final agency action under the apa 5 usc  704 must be the consummation of the agencys decisionmaking process must not be of a merely tentative or interlocutory nature and must be one by which rights or obligations have been determined or from which legal consequences will flow  first quoting chi  s air lines inc v waterman ss corp 333 us 103 113 68 sct 431 92 led 568 1948 and then quoting port of bos marine terminal assn v rederiaktiebolaget transatlantic 400 us 62 71 91 sct 203 27 led2d 203 1970 holding that the defendant must demonstrate that the conditions presenting the risk must be sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering and give rise to sufficiently imminent dangers  quoting helling 509 us at 33 3435 113 sct 2475 holding that the first amendment does not by itself give rise to a cause of action for damages holding that a defendant must demonstrate a knowing waiver holding that untimely provision of medication to hivpositive in mate did not cause sufficiently serious injury to give rise to an eighth amendment violation