Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
against unconsenting states or state officials when the state is the real, substantial party in interest, regardless of the remedy sought, including 'pendent state law claims.’ ”), citing Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 120-21, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984); Rakow v. North Dakota ex rel. State Bd. of Higher Educ., 2000 WL 227850 at *1 (8th Cir., February 24, 2000) (The plaintiff's claims were "barred by the Eleventh Amendment, which prohibits federal courts from hearing suits against states and state officers in their official capacities when, as in this case, the suit alleges a violation of state law and regardless of whether money damages or injunctive relief is sought.”) [Table Decision]; see also, Bisciglia v. Lee, 370 F.Supp.2d 874, 878 (D.Minn.2005) . Accordingly, we recommend that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is a suit against the state itself and not cognizable under  1983
B. holding state of north carolina and state official sued in their official capacity are immune from  1983 and  1985 actions in federal court
C. holding that punitive damages are not recoverable against a state official sued in his or her official capacity
D. holding that a state officer sued in his individual capacity may be held personally liable for damages under 42 usc  1983 based upon actions taken in his official capacity
E. recognizing that when a state employee is sued in his official capacity the state is the real party in interest and as a result the eleventh amendment is implicated
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.