With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". “speaks for itself’ is not a denial under Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B). See Ill. Bell Tel. Co. v. Global NAPS Ill, Inc., 749 F.Supp.2d 819, 822 n. 6 (N.D.Ill.2010); Laborers’ Pension Fund v. Eagle Am. Corp., 2009 WL 4545202, at *3 (N.D.Ill. Dec. 1, 2009); Harper v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 2008 WL 2003175, at *1 n. 1 (N.D.Ill. May 8, 2008); Houlihan v. McCourt, 2002 WL 1759822, at *1 n. 1 (N.D.Ill. July 29, 2002). Henderson also failed to submit a Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C) statement of additional material facts. Given Henderson’s failure to submit either a Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B) response or a Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C) statement, the factual assertions in his opposition brief (Doc. 75 at 2-5) will be disregarded. See Midwest Imps., Ltd. v. Coval, 71 F.3d 1311, 1317 (7th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Garner v. Lakeside Cmty. Comm., 2011 WL

A: holding that federal district court lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction to review the decision of a district of columbia high court determining application of a local rule to the case before it
B: holding district court has complete discretion whether to treat facts as conceded where local rule is violated
C: holding that the predecessor to local rule 561b3 provides the only acceptable means of  presenting additional facts to the district court
D: holding that predecessor statute to section 4h provides for permissive venue
C.