IN RE MIRAPEX PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, 16-3567. (2017)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Number: infco20170417084
Visitors: 15
Filed: Apr. 17, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 17, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM : Kathryn Gillette and Raif Szczepanski appeal the district court's 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in their diversity action for damages based on a prescription drug's alleged side effect on Gillette. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' arguments on appeal, we conclude that summary judgment was properly granted for the reasons stated by the district court. See Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017 , 1024 (8th Cir. 2012) (grant of summary judgmen
Summary: UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM : Kathryn Gillette and Raif Szczepanski appeal the district court's 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in their diversity action for damages based on a prescription drug's alleged side effect on Gillette. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' arguments on appeal, we conclude that summary judgment was properly granted for the reasons stated by the district court. See Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017 , 1024 (8th Cir. 2012) (grant of summary judgment..
More
UNPUBLISHED
PER CURIAM:
Kathryn Gillette and Raif Szczepanski appeal the district court's1 adverse grant of summary judgment in their diversity action for damages based on a prescription drug's alleged side effect on Gillette. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' arguments on appeal, we conclude that summary judgment was properly granted for the reasons stated by the district court. See Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir. 2012) (grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, viewing record in light most favorable to nonmovant); Integrity Floorcovering, Inc. v. Broan-Nutone, LLC, 521 F.3d 914, 917 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court's determination of state law is reviewed de novo).2 Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
FootNotes
1. The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Franklin L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
2. We do not consider allegations or claims that were not mentioned below. See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2001) (stating general rule that claims not presented in district court may not be advanced for first time on appeal).
Source: Leagle
