PER CURIAM. Kathryn Gillette and Raif Szczepanski appeal the district court’s 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). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. . 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, . We do not consider allegations or claims that were not mentioned below.
See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (stating general rule that claims not presented in district court may not be advanced for first time on appeal),