Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
plaintiff provides no evidence — other than her own bare allegations of futility — that requesting a second claim review would have been “clearly useless.” Such bare allegations of futility are simply insufficient to defeat defendant’s motion for summary judgment. See Rando, 1999 WL 317497, at *4 (granting summary judgment to an ERISA defendant when plaintiff responded to defendant’s summary judgment motion with unsupported allegations of futility). Moreover, the record indicates that the second claim review would have been conducted by different individuals than the first claim review, and that fact is also sufficient to preclude the court from finding that any further review would have been futile. See Getting v. Fortis Benefits Ins. Co., 108 F.Supp.2d 1200, 1203 (D.Kan.2000) , aff'd, 2001 WL 201966. For these reasons, the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the fact that different individuals could have conducted the subsequent review of denial of benefits was itself sufficient to preclude a finding futility
B. holding that claims were preempted where the factual basis of the complaint was the denial of reimbursement of plan benefits
C. holding that appeal from denial of rule 60b motion raised for review only the district courts order of denial and not the underlying judgment itself
D. holding that the consideration of the fact that claimant collected unemployment benefits while he was allegedly disabled was not a ground for reversal where there was other medical and vocational evidence supporting denial of benefits and claimants receipt of unemployment benefits was not decisive factor in denial of benefits
E. holding that the courts review is conducted under the plain error standard
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.