Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Robert Doyle Murphy appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendants in Murphy’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging his due process rights were violated when he was disciplined for possessing a weapon found in his cell. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a grant of summary judgment, Blanford, v. Sacramento County, 406 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir.2005), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Murphy’s due process claim because discovery of the weapon in Murphy’s cell was “some evidence” to support the disciplinary actions. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985) . We are not persuaded by Murphy’s contention
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where the conviction was final the disciplinary commission was not authorized to assume the roles of both an accusatory tribunal and the ultimate determiner of guilt and that the separation of responsibility between the disciplinary board and the disciplinary commission provides constitutional due process
B. holding that due process requires that the findings and actions of a disciplinary prison board be supported by some evidence in the record
C. holding that depriving inmates of statecreated right to goodtime credits in prison disciplinary proceedings requires due process
D. holding because defendant does not argue in his brief that these findings of fact are not supported by    evidence in the record this court is bound by the trial courts findings of fact
E. holding that a reviewing court has the power to reject the findings and conclusions of the trial court where the findings are not supported by the evidence
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.