With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". argues that there are controverted facts such that the entry of summary judgment for the defendants was unwarranted. He refers to his own affidavit and “numerous other documentary evidence.” See id. at 6. However, this documentary evidence is not further identified. Upon review of the record, we conclude that we need not address the res judicata issue. In the instant case, the defendants have set forth detailed evidentiary materials that support the district court’s conclusion that they did not violate Mr. Davison’s constitutional rights or his rights under the EMTALA. Neither Mr. Davison’s affidavit nor the other evidence in the record raises controverted factual issues warranting a trial. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (<HOLDING>). In particular, we note that Mr. Davison

A: recognizing that the burden on summary judgment shifts to the nonmoving party once the moving party has met its initial responsibility of showing the absence of a triable issue of fact and that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment if the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of the case
B: holding that the nonmoving party may not rest upon mere denials or allegations in the pleadings but must set forth specific facts sufficient to raise a genuine issue for trial
C: holding that the nonmoving party may not defeat a summary judgment motion by standing on the bare allegations in the pleadings
D: holding that when the moving party submits a properly supported summary judgment motion the nonmoving party must produce affirmative evidence to demonstrate genuine issue of fact and may not rely simply on denials or allegations in pleadings
D.