Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
while working for The District at Project Forward.” (Plaintiffs Opposition to Summary Judgment, p. 7.) But Thomas’s position at Project Forward, another program in the District where Thomas was employed before the STAR Academy, is irrelevant. Moreover, by her own testimony, plaintiff knew before she even began working at the STAR Academy that plaintiff was explicitly told that he was not a supervisor at Project Forward and that he should not hold himself out to be. Plaintiff argues in the alternative that even if Thomas was not a supervisor, he “masqueraded” as one. But if plaintiff erroneously thought that Thomas had some supervisory role in relation to her, her belief was not clearly reasonable, and cannot create liability for the district. Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 759, 118 S.Ct. 2257 . There is no evidence in the record from which
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that false arrest is one means of committing false imprisonment
B. holding that amtrak was a state actor
C. holding that a supervisor was not similarly situated to another supervisor with the same title where the former could not perform the latters duties
D. holding that such a physician was a state actor under  1983
E. holding that in cases where there is a false impression that the actor was a supervisor when he in fact was not the victims mistaken conclusion must be a reasonable one
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.