a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for banning him from the swap meet. Because Consolidated presented evidence that it had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its action, the burden shifted to Githere to present facts sufficient to show that the nondiscriminatory reason was a pretext for discrimination. See Lindsey v. SLT L.A., LLC, 447 F.3d 1138, 1147-48 (9th Cir.2006) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-03, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973)). Githere does not state a prima facie case of race discrimination or deprivation of a right under 42 U.S.C. sections 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986 or 2000d. Rather, he relies on the bare allegations of his complaint, which is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Far Out Productions, 247 F.3d at 997 (<HOLDING>). Additionally, none of Consolidated’s conduct,
holding that a nonmoving party cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment by relying on conclusory statements holding that when deciding a motion for judgment on the pleadings the court must construe the material allegations in the complaint in favor of the nonmoving party as true recognizing that nonmoving party must present affirmative evidence  to defeat summary judgment holding that when the moving party submits a properly supported summary judgment motion the nonmoving party must produce affirmative evidence to demonstrate genuine issue of fact and may not rely simply on denials or allegations in pleadings holding that the nonmoving party may not defeat a summary judgment motion by standing on the bare allegations in the pleadings