United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 99-2286 ___________ In re: Orthopedic Bone Screw Litigation* ____________________ * * Karen R. Callahan; Gerald F. Wehler; * Marjorie Wehler; Viola Wells; * * Plaintiffs-Appellants, * * v. * * Sofamor, S.N.C.; Danek Medical, Inc.; * Sofamor-Danek; Sofamor, Inc.; * * Defendants-Appellees. * ____________________ * * John C. Frank; Gail R. Frank; Dana W. * Frank; JoAnn C. Frank; Kurt R. * Meintsma; * * Plaintiffs-Appellants, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of Minnesota. * Sofamor, S.N.C.; Danek Medical, Inc.; * [UNPUBLISHED] Sofamor-Danek; Soramor, Inc.; * * Defendants-Appellees. * ____________________ * * Linda Sue Gipson; *  * Plaintiff-Appellant, * * v. * * Sofamor, S.N.C.; Danek Medical, Inc.; * Sofamor-Danek; Sofamor, Inc.; * * Defendants-Appellees. * ____________________ * * Carolyn M. Hendley; Theron Hendley; * * Plaintiffs-Appellants, * * v. * * Sofamor, S.N.C.; Danek Medical, Inc.; * Sofamor-Danek; Sofamor, Inc.; * * Defendants-Appellees. * ____________________ * * Everett E. Hendrickson; * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * * v. * * Sofamor, S.N.C.; Danek Medical, Inc.; * Sofamor-Danek; Sofamor, Inc.; * * Defendants-Appellees. * ____________________ * * Valerie E. Lennon; * * -2-  Plaintiff-Appellant, * * v. * Danek Medical, Inc.; Sofamor-Danek * Group, Inc.; * * Defendants-Appellees, * * Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc.; * * Defendant, * * Sofamor, S.N.C.; Sofamor, Inc.; * * Defendants-Appellees. * ____________________ * * Mae V. Martin; Calvin Martin; * * Plaintiffs-Appellants, * * v. * * Sofamor, S.N.C.; Danek Medical, Inc.; * Sofamor-Danek; Sofamor, Inc., * * Defendants-Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: May 11, 2000 Filed: May 18, 2000 ___________ -3- Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, FAGG, Circuit Judge, and HENDREN,* District Judge. ___________ PER CURIAM. The individual appellants appeal the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in this diversity-based products liability action. We review a grant of summary judgment under a well-established standard. Because this is a diversity action, we review de novo questions of state law. Having considered the record and the parties' briefs, we are satisfied the district court correctly applied the controlling state law and the record supports the district court's ruling. We also conclude a comprehensive opinion in this diversity case would lack precedential value. We thus affirm on the basis of the district court's ruling without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. * The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, sitting by designation. -4-