With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for banning him from the swap meet. Because Consolidated presented evidence that it had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its action, the burden shifted to Githere to present facts sufficient to show that the nondiscriminatory reason was a pretext for discrimination. See Lindsey v. SLT L.A., LLC, 447 F.3d 1138, 1147-48 (9th Cir.2006) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-03, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973)). Githere does not state a prima facie case of race discrimination or deprivation of a right under 42 U.S.C. sections 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986 or 2000d. Rather, he relies on the bare allegations of his complaint, which is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Far Out Productions, 247 F.3d at 997 (<HOLDING>). Additionally, none of Consolidated’s conduct,

A: holding that a nonmoving party cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment by relying on conclusory statements
B: holding that the nonmoving party may not defeat a summary judgment motion by standing on the bare allegations in the pleadings
C: holding that when deciding a motion for judgment on the pleadings the court must construe the material allegations in the complaint in favor of the nonmoving party as true
D: recognizing that nonmoving party must present affirmative evidence  to defeat summary judgment
B.