In this slip-and-fall case, Plaintiff-Appellant Margaret Williams appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Wal-Mart”).

Williams’ amended complaint alleges that while shopping in Wal-Mart, she slipped on a puddle of water, which resulted in injury to her leg, hip, and shoulder. Williams seeks compensatory and punitive damages for negligence and wantonness, based on Wal-Mart’s employees’ alleged failure to detect and clean up the liquid.

Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment, arguing that Williams had not met her burden, under Alabama negligence law, ^[1] of establishing that Wal-Mart had: (1) actual notice of the puddle; (2) constructive notice; or (3) that the store was otherwise delinquent for failing to discover and remove the hazard. Williams replied that she had proffered sufficient evidence to demonstrate constructive notice and/or delinquency on the part of Wal-Mart, and, alternatively, an adverse inference should be drawn against Wal-Mart because it allegedly destroyed or withheld video sur-[*480] veillanee tapes from Williams. The district court concluded that Williams had not met her burden of proving notice, rejected Williams’ spoliation argument, and granted summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart on both the negligence and wantonness claims. ^[2] Williams now appeals to this court.

After a thorough review of the record and briefs, we are in accord with the district court that Williams failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Wal-Mart was negligent in failing to clean up the water that Williams allegedly slipped on and that Williams’ spoliation of evidence argument is merit-less.

For the reasons stated in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion, we affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart.

AFFIRMED.