[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
SEPTEMBER 28, 2006
No. 05-16425 THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 03-00167-CV-4
VANESSA CATALANO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MCDONALD’S CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee,
GWD MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,
d.b.a. McDonald’s Corporation,
Defendant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
_________________________
(September 28, 2006)
Before BIRCH, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Vanessa Catalano sued McDonald’s Corporation (“McDonald’s”) and GWD
Management Corporation (“GWD”), the owner-operator of a McDonald’s franchise
restaurant in Hinesville, Georgia, for damages resulting from an incident in which
GWD employees followed the instructions of a prank caller in performing a strip
search of Catalano. The district court granted partial summary judgment to GWD and
granted summary judgment to McDonald’s on all of Catalano’s claims against
McDonald’s. While the remaining claims against GWD proceeded in district court,
the district court entered judgment for McDonald’s pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b).
Catalano then brought this appeal, challenging only the district judge’s grant of
summary judgment to McDonald’s on Catalano’s negligence claims brought pursuant
to negligent undertaking and premises liability theories (Counts X and XII of the First
Amended Complaint), claim for attorneys’ fees (Count XIII), and claim for punitive
damages (Count XV).
Having considered the briefs and relevant parts of the record, we find no error
in the district court’s grant of summary judgment to McDonald’s. As to the negligent
undertaking claim, we find that summary judgment was properly granted to
McDonald’s for the reasons stated by the district court. (R.6-117 at 30-31). We also
conclude that the district court correctly found that McDonald’s fully surrendered the
premises to GWD and therefore, pursuant to O.C.G.A. §44-7-14, is not liable to
Catalano on a premises liability theory. ( R.6-117 at 27). Having decided that the
district court properly found that McDonald’s is not liable to Catalano on the
2
negligence claims, we do not address the claims for attorneys’ fees and punitive
damages. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
3