Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
court that his claims should survive because they involved continuing injuries that did not end until January 24, 2000. The district court construed this as an argument for the application of the continuing violation doctrine. The district court then rejected this argument because it concluded, based upon an unpublished decision of this court, that the continuing violation doctrine is not applicable to § 1983 cases. McCormick v. Farrar, No. 02-2037-GTV, 2003 WL 1697686, at *4 (D.Kan. Mar.20, 2003) (unpublished) (citing Rassam v. San Juan Coll. Bd., 113 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir.1997)). This court has not, however, announced a precedential blanket rule that the continuing violation doctrine is inapplicable to § 1983 suits. Cf. Thomas v. Denny's, Inc., 111 F.3d 1506, 1513-14 (10th Cir.1997) . Rassam, the case relied on by the district
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the carew rule to be inapplicable to claims of insurer bad faith
B. holding confrontation clause inapplicable at sentencing
C. holding continuing violation theory inapplicable to  1981 claims
D. holding that equitable defense of laches is inapplicable to claims of fraud
E. holding frady inapplicable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.