this court may not review “whether the evidence could support a finding that particular conduct occurred” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Estate of Carter, 408 F.3d at 309-10 (noting that a defendant’s argument that the district court “erroneously considered inadmissible evidence” is an impermissible attempt to dispute facts on appeal). Carney replies that he is not disputing the estate’s version of the facts “per se,” but then proceeds to do just that. He cites no case law in support of his claim that we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Perhaps Carney’s best factual argument, which he never explicitly makes, is that the facts relied on by the district court are “blatantly contradicted by the record.” See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380,127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) (<HOLDING>); Moldowan, 578 F.3d at 370-71 (noting, in the
holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that motion for summary judgment was not opposed holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed holding that on summary judgment a court should not adopt a version of the facts blatantly contradicted by the record holding that when a video recording of an alleged excessive force incident contradicts the nonmoving partys version of the incident to the extent that no reasonable jury could believe it a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment holding that when opposing parties tell two different stories one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record so that no reasonable jury could believe it a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment