With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 59 . See 7547 Corp. v. Parker.& Parsley Development Partners, 38 F.3d 211, 220 (5th Cir.1994); and Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 28 F.3d at 1396-97. 60 . Barker v. Norman, 651 F.2d 1107, 1123 (5th Cir.1981); Gordon v. Watson, 622 F.2d 120, 123 (5th Cir.1980). 61 . See King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d at 346, (refusing to permit a pro se litigant to rely upon an unverified pleading and mier v. Pennzoil, 969 F.2d at 1561, (both holding that a court may not consider hearsay contained in an affidavit when ruling on a summary judgment motion); Hanks v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 953 F.2d at 997; Lechuga v. Southern Pacific Transportation Company, 949 F.2d at 794; Orthopedic & Sports Injury Clinic v. Wang, 922 F.2d 220, 225 (5th Cir.1991), (<HOLDING>); Isquith v. Middle South Utilities, Inc., 847

A: holding that unsupported allegations or denials are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for purposes of summary judgment
B: holding that unsupported affidavits setting forth ultimate or conclusoiy facts and conclusions of law are insufficient to either support or defeat a motion for summary judgment
C: holding that affidavits must set forth facts admissible in evidence and explain its conclusions
D: holding that party may not rely on conclusory statements or an argument that the affidavits in support of the motion for summary judgment are not credible
B.