DONNA IANNONE, an individual v. J.c. Penney Company

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 07-2912
_____________
DONNA IANNONE,
an individual
v.
J.C. PENNEY COMPANY;
J.C. PENNEY CORPORATION,
t/d/b/a J.C. PENNEY;
FURNITURE BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC.;
LANE FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC.;
ACTION INDUSTRIES, INC.
Donna Iannone,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 05-cv-00710)
District Judge: Honorable Gary L. Lancaster
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 30, 2008
Before: RENDELL, SMITH and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Filed: July 18, 2008
OPINION OF THE COURT

-- 1 of 2 --

2
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff, Donna Iannone, appeals the District Court’s orders adopting the Report
and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and entering final judgment in favor of the
defendants, J.C. Penney Company, Inc., J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc. t/d/b/a J.C.
Penney, (together “J.C. Penney”), Furniture Brands International, Inc., Lane Furniture
Industries, Inc., and Action Industries, Inc. In her complaint, Iannone alleged that the
defendants were liable for injuries she received from a defective reclining chair that was
purchased from J.C. Penney and engineered by Lane Furniture, Inc. and/or Action
Industries, Inc., wholly owned subsidiaries of Furniture Brands International, Inc. At the
close of discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment. The Magistrate Judge
subsequently issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that defendants’
summary judgment motion be granted because the expert testimony offered by Iannone as
to causation was not stated with the degree of certainty required under Pennsylvania law
to create a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Iannone filed objections to the Report
and Recommendation, but the District Court ultimately adopted it and entered final
judgment in favor of defendants and against Iannone.
Having reviewed the record, we find the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation well-reasoned and do not find any ground for disturbing or varying
from its analysis. Accordingly, we will affirm the order of the District Court for the
reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s thorough Report and Recommendation.

-- 2 of 2 --