Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of harm posed by the conditions. Revels v. Vincenz, 382 F.3d 870, 875 (8th Cir.2004); Smith v. Copeland, 87 F.3d 265, 267-68 (8th Cir.1996). Even if the Court accepts as true all of Plaintiffs allegations regarding the conditions he encountered at the CCDC, he has failed to establish that those conditions created a substantial risk of harm to his health or safety. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992) (explaining that “extreme deprivations” are required in order to sustain a conditions of confinement claim, and that “only those deprivations denying the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities are sufficiently grave to form the basis” of a constitutional violation); Wilson v. Setter, 501 U.S. 294, 305, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991) . Furthermore, as to the subjective element,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that conduct actionable as state claim for defamation does not rise to level of liberty deprivation simply because government officials are involved
B. holding that harassment or discrimination does not rise to the level of persecution under the ina unless it is accompanied by physical punishment infliction of harm or significant deprivation of liberty
C. holding that nothing so amorphous as overall conditions can rise to the level of cruel and unusual punishment when no specific deprivation of a single human need exists
D. holding that yelling spitting at and threatening an inmate do not rise to the level at which prevailing doctrine sets the constitutional bar to establish cruel and unusual punishment
E. holding that transfer involving no reduction in pay and only a minor change in working conditions does not rise to the level of a material adverse employment action
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.