With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". proffered reason for denying him a promotion was pretext. We stated: Finally, [the Plaintiff] makes much of the fact that the EEOC had issued a favorable letter of determination regarding his claim of race-based failure to promote, and that he had presented the letter to the district court. However, when the independent facts before the district court judge fail to establish a genuine issue of material fact, a favorable EEOC letter of determination does not create one. Id. at 1331; see also, Dinse v. Carlisle Foodservice Prods., Inc., No. 12-6178, 541 Fed.Appx. 885, 2013 WL 5930804 (10th Cir. Nov. 6, 2013) (unpublished) (same); Konzak v. Wells Fargo Bank, 492 Fed.Appx. 906, 908 n. 1 (10th Cir.2012) (unpublished) (same) ; Septimus v. Univ. of Houston, 399 F.3d 601, 610 (5th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). After examining the above authorities, the

A: holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment
B: holding that when there are no genuine issues of material fact summary judgment is appropriate
C: holding that inconsistencies in the summary judgment evidence of a single witness create a fact issue
D: holding that an eeoc reasonable cause determination letter did not constitute evidence precluding summary judgment when the other evidence was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact
D.