the prior settlement. IV. CONCLUSION Given the record before it, the superior court could not permissibly have denied judg ment to the State of Alaska and Clarence Jackson. It consequently did not err in dismissing Ahwinona’s complaint. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the trial court’s entry of final judgment against Ahwinona. 1 . See also Murat v. F/V Shelikof Strait, 793 P.2d 69, 75 (Alaska 1990) (stating that unauthenticated documents can be considered in support of a motion when no timely objection to the documents is made, relying on "the well-recognized principle that a failure to timely raise any eviden-tiary objection constitutes waiver of that objection and permits the court to consider the proffered evidence”) (citing Kvasnikoff v. Weaver Bros., Inc., 405 P.2d 781, 784 (Alaska 1965) (<HOLDING>)). 2 . In Brock v. Rogers & Babler, Inc., 536
holding that unverified pleadings and unauthenticated documents did not constitute proper summary judgment evidence holding that unauthenticated documents may be considered in support of a motion for summary judgment where the documents were not objected to or their authenticity disputed holding that the district court properly considered documents attached to a motion to dismiss that described the terms of plaintiffs group health insurance plan where plaintiff alleged membership in the plan his claims depended on the conditions described in the documents and plaintiff never disputed their authenticity holding that unauthenticated documents cannot be considered at summary judgment holding that plan documents could be considered without converting the motion to one for summary judgment even though the complaint referred only to the plan and not its associated documents