dispute existed” concerning the defendant’s claim of qualified immunity). Scott permits interlocutory appeals where the plaintiffs version of the facts “is ‘so utterly discredited by the record’ as to be rendered a ‘visible fiction.’ ” Chappell v. City Of Cleveland, 585 F.3d 901, 906 (6th Cir.2009) (quoting Scott, 550 U.S. at 380-81, 127 S.Ct. 1769). This court has characterized Scott’s allowance of interlocutory appeals as sanctioning challenges based on the legal issue of “whether the factual disputes (a) are genuine and (b) concern material facts” rather than “mere[ ] quibbling with the district court’s reading of the factual record.” Id. (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted); but see Jones v. Yancy, 420 Fed.Appx. 554, 557-58 (6th Cir.2011) (unpublished opinion) (<HOLDING>). In any event, where a defendant raises the
holding that unsupported allegations or denials are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for purposes of summary judgment recognizing probable cause as complete defense to a claim of malicious prosecution in new york internal quotation marks and brackets omitted holding that an error is harmless if it was inconsequential to the ultimate nondisability determination internal quotation marks omitted holding that although a determination that an issue of fact is genuine is unreviewable scott allows interlocutory appeals from denials of summary judgment in those rare cases where the district court makes a blatant and demonstrable error brackets and internal quotation marks omitted holding that if and when abuse does occur  it is well within the supervisory powers of the courts of appeals to establish summary procedures and calendars to weed out frivolous claims brackets and internal quotation marks omitted