See docket entry no. proceed In Forma Pauperis in this cause be denied. 30 . See docket entry no. 37. 31 . See docket entry no. 47. 32 . See docket entry no. 34. 33 . Barker v. Norman, 651 F.2d 1107 (5th Cir.1981). While specific notice regarding summary judgment procedures is not required with regard to pro se litigants', see Martin v. Harrison County Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir.1992), this Court prefers to provide such notice whenever possible. 34 . See Washington v. Resolution Trust Corporation, 68 F.3d 935, 939 (5th Cir.1995); Nowlin v. Resolution Trust Corporation, 33 F.3d 498, 504 n. 9 (5th Cir. 1994); Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics and Intelligence Coordination Unit, 2 2d 338, 341 n. 2 (5th Cir.1982); and Orthopedic & Sports Injury Clinic v. Wang, 922 F.2d at 225, (<HOLDING>). 66 . See King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d at 346,
holding that affidavit in support of summary judgment may not be based upon factual conclusion or conclusions of law 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 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 holding that affidavits must set forth facts admissible in evidence and explain its conclusions holding that unsupported allegations or denials are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for purposes of summary judgment