Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
28 at 9. 12 . 18 U.S.C. § 4013; Doc. 17 at 6. 13 . See 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) (setting forth offense of "escape from the custody of the Attorney General or his authorized representative") (emphasis added); 18 U.S.C. § 2241 (setting forth offense of sexual assault against a person in a "prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency”) (emphasis added). 14 .Doc. 28 at 7-9. 15 . 18 U.S.C. § 4013. 16 . 565 U.S. 118, 132 S.Ct. 617, 181 L.Ed.2d 606 (2012). 17 . Id. at 626. 18 . Id. at 623-26. 19 . Id.; see Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 70-74, 122 S.Ct. 515, 151 L.Ed.2d 456 (2001); Peoples v. CCA Detention Ctrs., 422 F.3d 1090, 1103 (10th Cir.2005) ; but see DeVargas v. Mason & Hanger-Silas
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a bivens cause of action cannot be maintained against a federal agency
B. holding that the medicaid statute did not create an enforceable cause of action against a private health care facility
C. holding that because of statutory remedial scheme court would not imply a cause of action arising directly under the state constitution
D. holding that court would not imply a bivens cause of action for a prisoner held in a private prison facility
E. holding that court would not imply a statutory cause of action for employers interference in employees assertion of claim for compensation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.