that she has never seen Nathan Smith. Rather, the Smiths state in their Response that they do not dispute any of these facts, but that the facts are not relevant to this motion. See Response ¶¶ 35-39, at 5. The Tenth Circuit has held: “Without a specific reference, [the court] will not search the record in an effort to determine whether there exists dormant evidence which might require submission of the case to a jury.” Chavez v. New Mexico, 397 F.3d 826, 839 (10th Cir.2005) (quotation omitted). Accord Thomas v. Wichita Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 968 F.2d 1022, 1025 (10th Cir.1992) (explaining that searching the appel late record for “dormant evidence ... would not be fair to either the movant or the district court”); Carmen v. S.F. Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Barge v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 87 F.3d 256,
holding that a court need not examine the entire file for evidence establishing a genuine issue of fact where the evidence is not set forth in the opposing papers with adequate references so that it could conveniently be found holding that while a district court has discretion to consider other materials in the record it has no obligation to do so where the evidence is not set forth in the opposing papers with adequate references so that it could conveniently be found holding that the state has no obligation to provide adequate housing holding that a district court need not comb the record to find some reason to deny a motion for summary judgment particularly where the evidence is not set forth in the opposing papers with adequate references so that it could conveniently be found holding that the district court need not examine the entire file for evidence establishing the absence of a genuine issue of fact where the evidenceis not set forth in the moving papers with adequate references so that it could conveniently be found