v. Kline, 845 F.2d 1300, 1307 (5th Cir.1988) (court not required to search entire record to ensure that record is “bereft of genuine issue of material fact.”). 31 . The evidence we allude to includes deposition testimony, copies of signed notes, and unanswered interrogatories and requests for admissions from defendants to plaintiffs. In the words of the district court: Mr. Lopez is obviously not aware of the law in regard to responding to a motion for summary judgment. If factual issues abound, this was the time to present them, with supporting documentation, to this court. Mr. Lopez has failed to present more than unsubstantiated allegations.... Order at 15. 32 .See also Hemphill v. Greater Houston Bank, 537 S.W.2d 124, 125 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston, [14th Dist.] 1976, no writ) (<HOLDING>). 33 . Similarly, in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
holding that summary judgment is appropriate if summary judgment proof establishes that moving parties are holders of the notes the notes have matured according to their terms and nonmoving parties have defaulted recognizing that the burden on summary judgment shifts to the nonmoving party once the moving party has met its initial responsibility of showing the absence of a triable issue of fact and that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment if the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of the case holding that if summary judgment is reversed and remanded parties are not limited to theories asserted in original summary judgment at later trial on merits holding that a trial court may enter summary judgment for a nonmoving party under appropriate circumstances holding that where parties did not respond to an issue in summary judgment motion parties relinquished any claim on the issue and conceded that summary judgment should be entered against them