With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Ex. 2. She errs in her reliance, however, because Bryant qualifies his statement by stating that the “support” was “[d]uring [the plaintiffs] absence” and that “[t]o [his] knowledge, [the plaintiff] retained the ability and latitude to interact with the staff members.” Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. 2. Accordingly, the plaintiff, relying on her own self-serving affidavit, offers no direct evidence of the reassignment of her work. See generally Pl.’s Opp’n & Exs. 1, 4. This Circuit has held that “under some circumstances ... 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) (emphasis added), vacated in part on other grounds, 320 F.3d 280 (D.C.Cir.2003); see also Arrington, 473 F.3d at 343 (<HOLDING>). Because the plaintiff offers no corroboration

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 the burden is on the plaintiff
C: 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
D: 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
A.