With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". has failed to present even a scintilla of evidence showing that the aforementioned employees’ qualifications were either the same or inferior to those of the plaintiff. As to Calloway, the plaintiff even admits that he did not know what his qualifications were. As demonstrated, the plaintiff has failed to establish the crucial elements of his prima facie ease. Moreover, the plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence other than conclusory allegations. Such allegations cannot interpose genuine issues of material fact into the litigation, so as to preclude entry of a summary judgment. See Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (citations omitted) (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the

A: holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that motion for summary judgment was not opposed
B: holding that new evidence must be evidence that is not merely cumulative
C: holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed
D: holding that if the evidence is merely colorable or is not significantly probative summary judgment may be granted
D.