Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 542 F.3d 1204, 1209 (8th Cir.2008) (quoting Miller v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 779 F.2d 1378, 1382 (8th Cir.1985)). The district court must evaluate the record, including pleadings, affidavits, or declarations on file, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party to determine whether “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Missouri Coalition, 542 F.3d at 1209. Once the moving party has met its burden, the non-moving party may not rest on the allegations of his pleadings but must set forth specific facts, by affidavit or other evidence, showing that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Gannon Intern., Ltd. v. Blocker, 684 F.3d 785, 792 (8th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>). In considering a motion for summary judgment 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment since the physical evidence and unrebutted expert testimony left no genuine issue of material fact (B) holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed (C) holding that evidence in an inadmissible form may be considered at the summary judgment stage as long as the evidence is submitted in an admissible form at trial (D) holding that unrebutted evidence can and should form the basis for summary judgment (E) holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that motion for summary judgment was not opposed
Output (English): holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed