Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Nancy and Ronald Hay-Rewalt appeal the district court’s order dismissing their lawsuit, which was based on injuries sustained from the implantation of transvagi-nal surgical mesh. This case is one of many referred by a Judicial Panel on Mul-ti-District Litigation to the Southern District of West Virginia. Applying Michigan law, the district court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the Hay-Rewalts’ action was barred by the statute of limitations.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, “viewing all facts and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmov-ing party.” Smith v. Gilchrist) 749 F.3d 302, 307 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. *93 Seremeth v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs Frederick Cnty., 673 F.3d 333, 336 (4th Cir. 2012). The relevant inquiry on summary judgment is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). An otherwise properly supported summary judgment motion will not be defeated by the existence of some factual dispute, however; only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. Indeed, to withstand a summary judgment motion, the non-moving party must produce competent evidence sufficient to reveal the existence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1).

We have thoroughly reviewed the district court’s order, the parties’ briefs, and the materials submitted on appeal. We conclude that the district court did not err in finding the Hay-Rewalts’ action barred under Michigan’s statute of limitations. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hay-Rewalt v. Boston Scientific Corp., No. 2:12-cv-09912, 2015 WL 1405504 (S.D.W.Va. Mar. 26, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.