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

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-3-2005
Midgette v. Wal Mart Stores Inc
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-1244
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Midgette v. Wal Mart Stores Inc" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1482.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1482
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No: 04-1244
MARSHA MIDGETTE,
Appellant
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(No. 01-CV-04277)
District Court: Hon. Franklin Van Antwerpen
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 20, 2005
Before: ALITO, McKEE and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: March 3, 2005)
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.