Midgette v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Third Circuit

Midgette v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

121 F. App'x 980

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMarch 3, 2005

Docket04-1244

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 121 F. App'x 980 (Midgette v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Midgette v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 121 F. App'x 980 (3d Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Marsha Midgette appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., her former employer. Midgette was severely injured when her husband shot her inside the defendant’s Pottstown, Pennsylvania, store after he had purchased ammunition there. Thereafter, Midgette filed this diversity action against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., alleging various grounds of recovery under state law.

Our review of the district court’s grant of summary judgment is plenary. Huang v. BP Amoco Corp., 271 F.3d 560, 564 (3rd Cir.2001).

Inasmuch as the district court has already set forth the factual and procedural history of this case, it is not necessary to repeat that history here. See Midgette v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 317 F.Supp.2d 550 (E.D.Pa.2004). Moreover, the district court, in its Memorandum and Order, has carefully and thoroughly explained its reasons for denying Midgette the relief she seeks and granting summary judgment to the defendants. We need not engage in a redundant analysis simply to reach the same result.

Accordingly, we will affirm the district court substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court’s Memorandum without further elaboration.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Marsha Midgette appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., her former employer. Midgette was severely injured when her husband shot her inside the defendant’s Pottstown, Pennsylvania, store after he had purchased ammunition there. Thereafter, Midgette filed this diversity action against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., alleging various grounds of recovery under state law.

Our review of the district court’s grant of summary judgment is plenary. Huang v. BP Amoco Corp., 271 F.3d 560, 564 (3rd Cir.2001).

Inasmuch as the district court has already set forth the factual and procedural history of this case, it is not necessary to repeat that history here. See Midgette v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 317 F.Supp.2d 550 (E.D.Pa.2004). Moreover, the district court, in its Memorandum and Order, has carefully and thoroughly explained its reasons for denying Midgette the relief she seeks and granting summary judgment to the defendants. We need not engage in a redundant analysis simply to reach the same result.

Accordingly, we will affirm the district court substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court’s Memorandum without further elaboration.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 F. App'x 980, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/midgette-v-wal-mart-stores-inc-ca3-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack