With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". review, defendant ignored a letter from plaintiff's personal physician that allegedly stated that plaintiff "should not be released to return to work until a firm diagnosis could be reached for her condition.” Although it is not entirely clear, the court assumes that plaintiff’s contention is that if defendant ignored the letter in the first claim review process, it would also ignore it in the second. However, even if the court were to find this purported "fact” relevant to plaintiff’s futility argument, it is unable to consider it in deciding the motion for summary judgment because plaintiff failed to support the purported "fact” with any admissible evidence, including the letter itself. See First Nat’l Bank v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 289, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968)

A: 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
B: holding that unsupported allegations or denials are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for purposes of summary judgment
C: holding that when there are no genuine issues of material fact summary judgment is appropriate
D: holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment
B.