Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Moreover, the fact that Manigault bent from the waist and turned after King’s bullet struck him did not make it unreasonable for Martinez to fire his weapon at a nearly simultaneous time. Thus, no genuine issues of material fact exist over whether the officers used deadly force in an objectively unreasonable manner. In addition, the Manigaults’ claim that the officers approached them son in a way that violated his Fourth Amendment rights must fail. Although the officers were trained to maintain a distance of at least 21 feet when facing a suspect carrying a knife, their abandonment of this protocol cannot form the basis for a remedy under § 1983 or deprive them of qualified immunity. See Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 119, 112 S.Ct. 1061, 117 L.Ed.2d 261 (1992) ; Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 194, 104
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that  1983 is the exclusive federal remedy for violation of the rights guaranteed in  1981 by state governmental units
B. holding that  1983 does not provide a remedy if there is no violation of federal law
C. holding suppression is not a remedy for violation of vienna convention under federal law
D. holding that if the speech in question does not address a matter of public concern there is no first amendment violation
E. holding that 42 usc  1983 does not provide a remedy for flsa violations
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.