an expert-by a non-moving party will not automatically allow that party to avoid summary judgment. See In re TMI Litigation, 193 F,3d 613, 716 (3d Cir. 1999) ("A trial court is not precluded from granting summary judgment merely because expert testimony is admitted. If, even given the proffered expert testimony, the proponent still has failed to present sufficient evidence to get to the jury, summary judgment is appropriate.”) (internal quotations omitted). 7 . See, e.g., Luby v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc., 633 F. Supp. 40, 42 n. 3 (S.D.Fla.1986) (noting that, "[w]here, as here, an issue is one of the kind on which expert testimony must be presented, and the affidavit of the expert is uncontradicted, summary judgment is proper”); Brown v. Kordis, 46 Fed.Appx. 315, 317 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Evans v. Mentor Corp., 2005 WL 1667661, at *3
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 holding that the trial court did not err by granting defendants motion for summary judgment holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment holding that when there are no genuine issues of material fact summary judgment is appropriate holding that unrebutted evidence can and should form the basis for summary judgment