Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
5 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. See Pa. Const, sched. art. 5, § 16(f), (i). As a result, this Court concludes that regardless of how plaintiff was appointed to the position of President Judge, the holding in Blake is still applicable to the instant case. With regard to the liberty interest asserted by plaintiff, plaintiff argues that the actions of defendant constitute a liberty interest; defamation must be combined with a more tangible interest under state law, and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has already held that a President Judge has no legal interest under state law in his administrative duties and responsibilities. See Petition of Blake, 593 A.2d at 1269 n. 2; see also Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 711, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 1165, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976) ; Clark v. Township of Falls, 890 F.2d 611, 620
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that defamation by a state official alone does not violate a liberty interest of a plaintiff absent the alteration or extinguishment of a right or status previously recognized by state law
B. holding that defamation standing alone does not suffice for a stigmaplus claim there must be a right or status previously recognized by state law that was distinctly altered or extinguished
C. holding that a suspension with pay does not violate any recognized property interest
D. holding that determination of whether an official was acting on behalf of the state or the local government is determined by state law
E. holding that defamation standing alone is not sufficient to establish a claim for deprivation of a liberty interest citations omitted
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.