allegations, which fail to specify 567 F.2d at 553. A general allegation of a conspiracy will not prevent dismissal as to a defendant who is named only in the caption of the complaint without any allegation of overt acts in which he engaged which were reasonably related to the promotion of the claimed conspiracy. Kadar Corp. v. Milbury, 549 F.2d 230, 232 (1st Cir. 1977). SECTION XIII: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The determinative question on a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is whether there is a genuine issue as to any material fact and whether the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. While the rule specifically authorizes the consideration of affidavits, statements made by counsel in briefs are not part of the record and are not treated as such unless stipulated to or unless they are matters of public record. The rule requires that affi davits be made on personal knowledge, that they set forth such facts as would be admissible into evidence, and that they show affirmatively that the affiant is. competent to testify to the matters stated therein.299 Sworn or certified copies of all papers referred to in the affidavit must be attached. An affidavit based upon personal knowledge can overcome a responsive affidavit which amounts only to a general denial. Lockhart v. Hoenstine, 411 F.2d 455 (3d Cir. 1969). Conclusory assertions of ultimate fact are entitled to little weight. 548 F.2d 673, 679 (7th Cir. 1976). Askew v. Bloemker, F.2d 298. Kauffman v. Johnston, 454 F.2d 264 (3d Cir. 1972). See Mitchell v. Beaubouef, No. 77-2656 (5th Cir. September 18, 1978), where the district court improperly dismissed the complaint based on an unverified administrative report of the defendant filed in accordance with the magistrate's order. The court noted that if the report had satisfied the requirements of Rule 56 it could have been considered in reaching summary judgment. 299. Hearsay evidence not admissible at trial cannot be used to avoid summary judgment. Broadway v. City of Montgomery, Alabama, 530 F.2d 657, 661 (5th Cir. 1976). Opinion evidence admissible at trial can be submitted by affidavit. Paton v. LaPrade, 524 F.2d 862 (3d Cir. 1975). Rule 56(e) further provides: When a motion for summary judgment is Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147 (4th Cir. 1978), citing its earlier decision in Roseboro v. Garrison, infra, stated: "[A] district court must advise a pro se litigant of his right under the summary judgment rule to file opposing affidavits to defeat a defendant's motion for summary judgment." 574 F.2d at 1151. Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 1975) approved of the procedure described by the District of Columbia Circuit in Hudson v. Hardy, 412 F.2d 1091 (1968): We hold that before entering summary 412 F.2d at 1094. On the question of withholding disposition of a motion for summary judgment until discovery has been completed it has been said: "[W]here the facts are in possession of the moving party a continuance of a motion for summary judgment for purposes of discovery should be granted almost as a matter of course, Costlow v. U.S., 552 F.2d 560, 564 (3d Cir. 1977). United States ex rel. Jones v. Rundle, 453 F.2d 147 (3d Cir. 1971) stated: The error of the district court resides in its granting defendant's motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is proper only when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ.P. Rule 56(c). "Any doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue of fact is to be resolved against the moving party Documents filed in support of a motion for summary judgment are to be used to determine whether issues of fact exist and not to decide the fact issues themselves. 453 F.2d at 150. SECTION XIV: ABATEMENT OF ACTION UPON DEATH OF A PARTY Neither section 1983 nor any other federal law covers abatement or survival of an action brought under section 1983 upon the death of a party. Therefore, it is necessary to resort to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 which provides: The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the district courts . . . for the protection of all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the same into effect; but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object, or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal cause is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws of the United States, shall be extended to and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the cause, and, if it is of a criminal nature, in the infliction of punishment on the party found guilty. In Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584, 98 S.Ct. 1991, 56 L. Ed. 2d 554 (1978), the lower courts erred in refusing to apply the state survivorship statute under which the cause of action abated upon the plaintiff's death. The district court had found the state law to be inconsistent with federal law and and created "a federal common law of survival in |