With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Stults v. Conoco, Inc., 76 F.3d at 656; Garcia v. Elf Atochem North America, 28 F.3d 446, 449 (5th Cir.1994); Slaughter v. Southern Talc Co., 949 F.2d at 170; Fields v. City of South Houston, Texas, 922 F.2d at 1187; Meyers v. M/V Eugenio C, 919 F.2d at 1072; Lavespere v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d at 178; and Lodge Hall Music, Inc. v. Waco Wrangler Club, Inc., 831 F.2d 77, 79 (5th Cir.1987). 47 . See Celotex Corp. v. Catr olding that a nonmovant cannot discharge his burden with some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, by conclusoiy allegations, unsubstantiated assertions, or by only a scintilla of evidence); Forsyth v. Barr, 19 F.3d 1527, 1533 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied sub nom. Forsyth v. Vines, 513 U.S. 871, 115 S.Ct. 195, 130 L.Ed.2d 127 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Resolution Trust Corporation v. Camp, 965

A: holding that summary judgment is appropriate where the nonmovant rests merely upon conclusory allegations improbable inferences and unsupported speculation
B: holding affidavits based on conclusory allegations insufficient at summary judgment
C: holding that securities fraud claims cannot rest on speculation and conclusory allegations
D: holding that summary judgment was appropriate when no reasonable factfinder could have found for the nonmovant
A.