With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 2505. 60 . Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548. 61 . Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 595 n. 16, 107 S.Ct. 2573, 96 L.Ed.2d 510 (1987); and Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548. 62 . Id. 63 . Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257, 106 S.Ct. 2505. 64 . FedR.Civ.P. 56(e); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505; State of Texas v. Thompson, 70 F.3d 390, 393 (5th Cir.1995). 65 . Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548; Fields v. City of South Houston, Texas, 922 F.2d 1183, 1187 (5th Cir.1991); Neff v. American Dairy Queen Corp., 58 F.3d 1063, 1065 (5th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1045, 116 S.Ct. 704, 133 L.Ed.2d 660 (1996). 66 . Hibernia Nat’l Bank v. Carner, 997 F.2d 94, 97 (5th Cir.1993). See also Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). 67 . See Douglass v. United Services Auto.

A: holding that a nonmovant cannot discharge her burden with doubt as to the material facts by conclusory allegations unsubstanti ated assertions or by only a scintilla of evidence
B: holding party opposing summary judgment does not show genuine issue for trial by replacing conclusory allegations of the complaint or answer with conclusory allegations of an affidavit
C: holding that the nonmovant may not carry its burden by simply showing that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts
D: recognizing that a noevidence summary judgment is improper if the nonmovant brings forth more than a scintilla of evidence
A.