59 . See 7547 Corp. v. Parker.& Parsley Development Partners, 38 F.3d 211, 220 (5th Cir.1994); and Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 28 F.3d at 1396-97. 60 . Barker v. Norman, 651 F.2d 1107, 1123 (5th Cir.1981); Gordon v. Watson, 622 F.2d 120, 123 (5th Cir.1980). 61 . See King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d at 346, (refusing to permit a pro se litigant to rely upon an unverified pleading and mier v. Pennzoil, 969 F.2d at 1561, (both holding that a court may not consider hearsay contained in an affidavit when ruling on a summary judgment motion); Hanks v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 953 F.2d at 997; Lechuga v. Southern Pacific Transportation Company, 949 F.2d at 794; Orthopedic & Sports Injury Clinic v. Wang, 922 F.2d 220, 225 (5th Cir.1991), (<HOLDING>); Isquith v. Middle South Utilities, Inc., 847
holding that unsupported allegations or denials are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for purposes of 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 affidavits must set forth facts admissible in evidence and explain its conclusions 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 affidavit in support of summary judgment may not be based upon factual conclusion or conclusions of law