With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is limited to damages”). To the extent we suggested otherwise in Doe, see 1996 WL 670414, at *4, we decline to follow, and are not bound by, that unpublished opinion, see 5th Cir. 47.5.4 (providing that "[unpublished opinions issued on or after January 1, 1996, are not precedent”). 45 . See Imperial, 37 F.3d at 1028 ("To assure that hospitals and doctors cooperate with the system and engage in meaningful professional , 1202 (D.Colo.2000) (concluding that the emergency provision was applicable where "the Executive Committee found that Dr. Pfenninger had exercised poor judgment in three recent cases; that he had a history of similar problems, and that summary suspension was 'necessary to protect patients' ”). 48 . See Payne v. Harris Methodist HEB, 44 Fed.Appx. 652 n. 1 (5th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). 49 . Rogers v. Columbia/HCA of Cent. La.,

A: holding that the district court did not err in finding that the plaintiff failed to provide adequate notice of new allegations where the plaintiffs complaint gave the defendants no notice of the specific factual allegations presented for the first time in the plaintiffs opposition to summary judgment
B: holding that because the allegations purportedly suppressed by the government were not material an evidentiary hearing further exploring the  allegations themselves and the governments knowledge of the allegations is unnecessary
C: holding that conclusory allegations are not entitled to the assumption of truth
D: holding in considering the emergency provision that given the serious allegations of incompetence made against payne we agree with the district court that the hospital was permitted to suspend him temporarily while sorting out the truth of the allegations
D.