McAdams v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP (Delaware) et al, No. 1:2016cv02758 - Document 24 (N.D. Ga. 2017)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 21 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 2/2/2017. (jkl)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
McAdams v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP (Delaware) et al Doc. 24 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ANGELA MCADAMS, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:16-CV-2758-TWT WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP (DELAWARE), et al., Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER This is a slip-and-fall case removed to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. It is before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 21]. I. Summary Judgment Standard Summary judgment is appropriate only when the pleadings, depositions, and affidavits submitted by the parties show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The court should view the evidence and any inferences that may be drawn in the light most favorable to the non movant. Adickes v. S.H. Kress and Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158159 (1970). The party seeking summary judgment must first identify grounds that T:\ORDERS\16\McAdams\msj.wpd Dockets.Justia.com show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). The burden then shifts to the non-movant, who must go beyond the pleadings and present affirmative evidence to show that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 257 (1986). II. Discussion Based upon the Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, the Plaintiff has made the following admissions. The Plaintiff admits that the Defendant did not have actual knowledge of the alleged hazard on July 21, 2014. The Plaintiff admits that the Defendant did not have constructive knowledge of the alleged hazard on July 21, 2014. The Plaintiff admits that the Defendant did not have superior knowledge of the alleged hazard on July 21, 2014. The Plaintiff admits that the Defendant was not negligent on July 21, 2014. The Plaintiff admits that the Defendant breached no duty to the Plaintiff on July 21, 2014. The Plaintiff admits that no act or omission of the Defendant was a proximate cause of any injuries alleged by the Plaintiff in this action. The Plaintiff admits that she failed to exercise care for her own safety at Wal-Mart Store 4409, Rockmart, Georgia on July 21, 2014. These admissions are fatal to the Plaintiff’s cause of action. III. Conclusion The Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 21] is GRANTED. T:\ORDERS\16\McAdams\msj.wpd -2- SO ORDERED, this 2 day of February, 2017. /s/Thomas W. Thrash THOMAS W. THRASH, JR. United States District Judge T:\ORDERS\16\McAdams\msj.wpd -3-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
