With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". its burden by pointing out the absence of evidence supporting the nonmoving party’s case. Stults v. Conoco, Inc., 76 F.3d at 656; National Association of Government Employees v. City Public Service Board, 40 F.3d 698, 712 (5th Cir.1994); and Latimer v. Smithkline & French Laboratories, 919 F.2d 301, 303 (5th Cir.1990). 42 . See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. at 2510-11; Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation, 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); Lavespere v. Niagara Machine & To hat only those portions of an expert witness’s affidavit that provided admissible opinion evidence could be considered for summary judgment purposes); Duplantis v. Shell Offshore, Inc., 948 F.2d 187, 192 (5th Cir.1991), (<HOLDING>); Martin v. John W. Stone Oil Distributor,

A: holding that summary judgment was appropriate when no reasonable factfinder could have found for the nonmovant
B: holding courts review motion for summary judgment in light most favorable to nonmovant
C: holding that a nonmovant could not oppose a summary judgment motion with an unauthenticated letter
D: holding that affidavits that are conclusory and based on hearsay can not be used to oppose motion for summary judgment
C.