Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Conclusory allegations and denials, speculation, improbable inferences, unsubstantiated assertions, and legalistic argumentation are not adequate substitutes for specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.Bd 1415, 1429 (5th Cir.1996) (en banc); SEC v. Recile, 10 F.3d 1093, 1097 (5th Cir.1993). In reviewing the summary judgment evidence, the Court has no duty to search the record for triable issues; rather, it need rely only on those portions of the submitted documents to which the nonmoving party directs its attention. See Dean v. Methodist Hospitals of Dallas, 1998 WL 826882 (N.D.Tex.); see also Cannizaro v. Neiman Marcus, Inc., 979 F.Supp. 465, 470 (N.D.Tex.1997) (<HOLDING>). Finally, in those circumstances where the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the court has no duty to search for triable issues (B) holding that police officers have no affirmative duty to search out favorable evidence for the defendant (C) holding that trial court has no duty to establish waiver on record (D) holding that a defendant has no constitutional right to challenge the search or seizure of property belonging to a third party even if the search was without probable cause (E) holding that the court must consider evidence submitted in support of a crossmotion for summary judgment to determine whether it raises triable issues of fact defeating the opponents motion
Output (English): holding that a defendant has no constitutional right to challenge the search or seizure of property belonging to a third party even if the search was without probable cause