proffered reason for denying him a promotion was pretext. We stated: Finally, [the Plaintiff] makes much of the fact that the EEOC had issued a favorable letter of determination regarding his claim of race-based failure to promote, and that he had presented the letter to the district court. However, when the independent facts before the district court judge fail to establish a genuine issue of material fact, a favorable EEOC letter of determination does not create one. Id. at 1331; see also, Dinse v. Carlisle Foodservice Prods., Inc., No. 12-6178, 541 Fed.Appx. 885, 2013 WL 5930804 (10th Cir. Nov. 6, 2013) (unpublished) (same); Konzak v. Wells Fargo Bank, 492 Fed.Appx. 906, 908 n. 1 (10th Cir.2012) (unpublished) (same) ; Septimus v. Univ. of Houston, 399 F.3d 601, 610 (5th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). After examining the above authorities, the
holding that inconsistencies in the summary judgment evidence of a single witness create a fact issue holding that when there are no genuine issues of material fact summary judgment is appropriate holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment holding that unsupported allegations or denials are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for purposes of summary judgment holding that an eeoc reasonable cause determination letter did not constitute evidence precluding summary judgment when the other evidence was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact