Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of which is an agreement between the parties to inflict a wrong against or injury upon another, and an overt act that results in damages.” Earle v. Benoit, 850 F.2d 836, 844 (1st Cir.1988)(quoting Hampton v. Hanrahan, 600 F.2d 600, 620-21 (7th Cir.1979)) (internal quotations omitted). While plaintiffs are correct that “conspiracy is a matter of inference,” summary judgment may still be appropriate on a conspiracy claim where the nonmoving party rests merely on conclusory allegations. Here plaintiffs have presented no evidence, either direct or circumstantial of an agreement among defendants from which a reasonable jury could have inferred a conspiracy among them to inflict harm upon the plaintiffs. Earle, 850 F.2d at 845; see also Slotnick v. Staviskey, 560 F.2d 31, 33 (1st Cir.1977). Summary judgment was thus proper on this
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that complaint alleging a conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of his civil rights cannot survive motion to dismiss based on conclusory allegations of conspiracy which are not supported by references to material facts
B. holding that a civil rights claim of conspiracy must include allegations of specific operative facts
C. holding plaintiffs must provide particularized allegations as to why demand would be futile to survive a motion to dismiss conclusory allegations are not enough
D. holding that a person alleging a conspiracy to violate constitutional rights must do more than simply aver that a conspiracy existed
E. holding that plaintiffs allegations of abuse did not amount to the allegations of torture required by  1605a7 to survive a motion to dismiss
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.