documents to defeat the defendant’s motion for summary judgment); Barker v. Norman, 651 F.2d at 1123; and Gordon v. Watson, 622 F.2d at 123. 62 . See Wallace v. Texas Tech University, 80 F.3d at 1047; Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075. (5th Cir.1994); King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d at 346; Dorsett v. Board of Trustees for State Colleges & Universities, 940 F.2d 121, 123 (5th Cir.1991); and Gordon v. Watson, 622 F.2d at 123. The filing of an unverified amended complaint renders a verified original complaint a nullity unless the amended complaint specifically refers to and adopts or incorporates by reference the earlier pleadings. King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d at 346; and Boelens v. Redman Homes, Inc., 759 F.2d 504, 508 (5th Cir.1985). 63 . See King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d at 346, (<HOLDING>); Salas v. Carpenter, 980 F.2d at 304-05, and
holding that a trial court can only consider admissible evidence in ruling on a motion for summary judgment holding that a verified complaint can be considered as summary judgment evidence only to the extent that it comports with the requirements of rule 56e holding that a verified complaint is treated as an affidavit for summary judgment purposes and considered in determining whether material issues of fact exist holding that rule 56e requires that summary judgment affidavits be based upon personal knowledge contain admissible evidence and affirmatively demonstrate the competency of the affiant to testify as to the matters contained therein holding that facts were not disputed because nonmovant failed to contest them with specific sworn evidence as required under rule 56e