With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Plaintiff argues that summary judgment should not have been granted because he, a pro se litigant, was not informed of the requirement that he must file affidavits to preserve factual issues for trial. Not only did the district court treat plaintiffs verified complaint as an affidavit, but it also considered the evidence that plaintiff attached to his objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation regarding summary judgment. As this allowed plaintiff the opportunity to correct any deficiencies in his summary judgment evidence, and as plaintiff has not identified other information he would have presented, the judgment need not be reversed based on the failure to inform plaintiff of the summary judgment requirements. Cf. Jaxon v. Circle K Corp., 773 F.2d 1138, 1140 (10th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). III Although two of plaintiffs diaries were

A: holding that dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim should generally be without prejudice but if the plaintiff has been given an opportunity amend his complaint and fails to do so the dismissal may be with prejudice
B: holding that pro se plaintiffs should be advised of their right to file responsive material to a motion for summary judgment
C: holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that motion for summary judgment was not opposed
D: holding pro se plaintiff should have been granted continuance to remedy his defective summary judgment materials by submitting affidavits or verifying his complaint
D.