F.3d 143, 147 (2d Cir.2005). “A ‘genuine’ dispute over a material fact only arises if the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Dister v. Cont’l Group, Inc., 859 F.2d 1108, 1114 (2d Cir.1988) (citation omitted). However, “[c]on-clusory allegations, conjecture and speculation ... are insufficient to create a genuine issue of fact.” Kerzer v. Kingly Mfg., 156 F.3d 396, 400 (2d Cir.1998). The Second Circuit has held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 “does not impose an obligation on a district court to perform an independent review of the record to find proof of a factual dispute.” Amnesty Am. v. Town of W. Hartford, 288 F.3d 467, 470 (2d Cir.2002) (citing Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1030-31 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>)). Moreover, “because nothing in the federal
holding that it is unfair to the district court to other litigants and to the movant to impose a duty on the district court to search and sift the factual record for the benefit of the defaulting party holding that it is not the courts duty to sift through the record for evidence that supports a partys contentions holding that evidence not submitted to the district court cannot be part of the record on appeal holding that the movant has the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion holding that although the district court was not required to discuss each of the factors on the record a decision to dismiss stands a better chance on appeal if the appellate court has the benefit of the district courts reasoning