Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
fails the first step of this inquiry, while his procedural due process claim fails the second. Substantive Due Process Leal alleged that his right to substantive due process was violated by the conduct of the Internal Affairs investigators and the composition of the Disciplinary Review Board that recommended indefinite suspension. However, an inadequate or invalid investigation is insufficient to state a civil rights claim unless another recognized constitutional right is involved. See, e.g., Andrews v. Fowler, 98 F.3d 1069, 1079 (8⅛ Cir. 1996). And Leal’s complaint regarding the composition of the Disciplinary Review Board rests upon the incorrect assumption that he was entitled to an impartial decisionmaker. See Schaper v. City of Huntsville, 813 F.2d 709, 715-718 (5th Cir.1987) . We therefore hold Leal’s substantive due
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a limited pretermination hearing was sufficient where it was followed by a more comprehensive posttermination hearing
B. holding that due process does not require the state to provide an impartial decisionmaker at the pretermination hearing where posttermination remedies are available
C. holding a due process claim failed because the plaintiff did not seek to require a witnessess attendance at a posttermination grievance hearing and was not inhibited or restricted from doing so
D. holding that procedures that were available to the employees after the implementation of the rif guideline provided such protection of their rights that the absence of a pretermination hearing alone was not violative of due process
E. holding that a pretermination hearing need not be in front of a neutral decisionmaker so long as the state affords plaintiff subsequent to his termination a full adversarial hearing before a neutral adjudicator
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.