With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the plaintiffs’ contention. Accordingly, the court concludes that no reasonable jury could find a genuine issue of material fact regarding the alleged offer of $1.2 million. 2. A Reasonable Juror Could Not Conclude that Ms. Gray Ever Extended a $1.8 Million Settlement Offer The plaintiffs also allege in the alternative that Ms. Gray made a settlement offer of $1.8 million. See Carranza Aff. ¶ 8. In support of this argument, however, the plaintiffs cite to only one document: plaintiff Juanita Carranza’s own affidavit. See id. “[A] party relying on unsupported affidavits cannot survive summary judgment.” McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 271 F.3d 1101, 1109 (D.C.Cir.2001), vacated in part on other grounds, 320 F.3d 280 (D.C.Cir.2003); see also Arrington, 473 F.3d at 343 (<HOLDING>). Summary judgment is appropriate when a

A: holding that when a plaintiff relies entirely on his own selfserving testimony which lacks any corroboration and is contradicted by all the available  evidence a court is not obligated to reward the plaintiff with a jury trial
B: holding that 1 the complaint is deemed to include any documents incorporated in it by reference and any document upon which it solely relies and which is integral to the complaint and that the court may consider such documents on a motion to dismiss pursuant to fedrcivp 12b6
C: holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the defendants reasons for not hiring the plaintiff were pretext because the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence other than her own subjective testimony that she was more qualified for the job than the selectee
D: holding that the burden is on the plaintiff
A.