MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER I. INTRODUCTION On June 29, 2020, pro se plaintiff Michele Gray (“Gray” or “plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Nestle Waters North America (“Nestle” or “defendant”). Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff alleges she became ill after consuming some Poland Spring water. Id. Along with her complaint, plaintiff sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”), moved for the appointment of counsel to represent her, and sought permission to participate in the Court’s electronic filing system. Dkt. Nos. 2, 3, 4. On July 31, 2020, U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart granted Gray’s IFP Application, Dkt. No. 6, denied her motions for counsel and to participate in electronic filing, Dkt. No. 7, and advised by Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) that plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with leave to replead, id. As Judge Stewart explained, Gray’s complaint failed to conform with basic federal pleading standards because, inter alia, it did not plead a proper basis for jurisdiction and failed to “make clear what claims Plaintiff intends to assert and on what legal theory each claim is based.” Dkt. No. 7. On August 27, 2020, this Court adopted the R&R. Dkt. No. 15. However, because Gray had already filed an amended pleading1 while the R&R was pending, Dkt. No. 12, the Court referred her amended complaint back to Judge Stewart for an initial review.2 Dkt. No. 15. Rather than wait for that initial review, Nestle answered the amended complaint and the parties proceeded to discovery.3 See Dkt. No. 18. Judge Stewart repeatedly intervened to keep this case moving toward a resolution. See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 32, 38, 41, 45, 47. The matter was later reassigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks, Dkt. No. 49, who also took on an active role in helping the parties move toward the conclusion of the discovery process. Dkt. Nos. 50, 52, 55, 58. Finally, on May 16, 2022, Nestle moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 56. Dkt. No. 65. Gray opposed and cross-moved for summary judgment in her own favor. Dkt. No. 68. The motions are fully briefed and will be decided on the basis of the submissions without oral argument. II. BACKGROUND4 In October of 2019, Gray began consuming Poland Spring water. Def.’s Facts, Dkt. No. 65-1 11. In 2020, plaintiff made several purchases of Poland Spring water from Market 32, a grocery vendor located in Troy, New York. Id.
12-13. However, on June 23, 2020, plaintiff stopped drinking Poland Spring water because it made her ill. Id.
