Vill., 739 F.3d 451, 461 (10th Cir.2013) (citations omitted). However, “[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the nonmovant’s position is insufficient to create a dispute of fact that is ‘genuine’; an issue of material fact is genuine only if the nonmovant presents facts such that a reasonable jury could find in favor of the nonmovant.” Lawmaster v. Ward, 125 F.3d 1341, 1347 (10th Cir.1997) (quoting Jenkins v. Wood, 81 F.3d 988, 990 (10th Cir.1996)). If a movant properly supports a motion for summary judgment, the opposing party may not rest on the allegations contained in her complaint, but must respond with specific facts showing a genuine factual issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted), Only admissible evidence
holding that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if there is a genuine dispute about a material fact holding that when there are no genuine issues of material fact summary judgment is appropriate holding that mere speculation does not satisfy the nonmoving partys burden of establishing a dispute of material fact sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment