(“A party may not overcome a grant of summary judgment by merely offering conclusory statements.”); Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik AG v. Murata Mach., Ltd., 731 F.2d 831, 836 (Fed.Cir.1984) (“The party opposing the motion must point to an evidentiary conflict created on the record at least by a counter statement of a fact or facts set forth in detail in an affidavit by a knowledgeable affiant. Mere denials or conclusory statements are insufficient.”); Redland Genstar, Inc. v. United States, 39 Fed.Cl. 220, 232 (1997) (“‘[A]n expert who supplies nothing but a bottom line supplies nothing of value to the judicial process.’”) (quoting Mid-State Fertilizer Co. v. Exchange Nat’l Bank of Chicago, 877 F.2d 1333, 1339 (7th Cir.1989)); J.F. Allen Co. v. United States, 25 Cl.Ct. 312, 325 (1992) (<HOLDING>). The proffered statements are unsupported by
holding that conclusory statements without factual support are of no value to the court when deciding a summary judgment motion holding that the judge cannot consider factual statements of counsel in a motion for summary judgment 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 district court has discretion when deciding to convert a defendants motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment holding that a nonmoving party cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment by relying on conclusory statements