Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
our prior qualified-immunity cases have not imposed the requirement. However, we find that the lack of such a specification impairs our ability to carry out our responsibilities e some basis for distinguishing between well-reasoned conclusions arrived at after a comprehensive consideration of all relevant factors, and mere boiler-plate approval phrased in appropriate language but unsupported by evaluation of the facts or analysis of the law.” Protective Committee for Indep. Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Anderson, 390 U.S. 414, 434, 88 S.Ct. 1157, 20 L.Ed.2d 1 (1968). At least one other Circuit has encountered the same difficulty in the qualified-immunity context that motivates us to act in a supervisory capacity here. See Beck v. Schwartz, 992 F.2d 870, 871 (8th Cir.1993) . Our approach differs from Beck’s. We cannot
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed
B. holding that it was error for the district court to overrule  appellants motion for summary judgment without reference to the qualified immunity defense
C. holding that arguments not presented to the district court in response to a motion for summary judgment are waived
D. holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that motion for summary judgment was not opposed
E. holding district court did not err by considering a contract central to the dispute without converting the motion to a motion for summary judgment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.