Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the extent they have been named in their individual capacities. With regard to that claim, the Court will proceed to consider the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and the Plaintiffs Motion to Strike. II. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # s 19 and 28) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affidavit of Samuel D. Faulkner (Doc. # 87) Although Johnson cannot proceed against the ODNR, nor the individual De fendants to the extent they have been sued in their official capacities and to the extent they have been sued under the common law of Ohio, he may proceed against Weaver and Wolgemuth in his § 1983 action (Fourth Cause of Action), to the extent they have been named in their individual capacities. See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25-27, 112 S.Ct. 358, 116 L.Ed.2d 301 (1991) . After setting forth the facts and the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the acts of a corporate officer done in his or her official capacity are acts of the corporation
B. holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is a suit against the state itself and not cognizable under  1983
C. holding that punitive damages are not recoverable against a state official sued in his or her official capacity
D. holding that a defendant can only be sued in his official capacity under  1983 if he acted pursuant to an official policy or custom in causing the constitutional injury
E. holding that a state official can be held individually hable under  1983 for acts taken within the scope of his or her official duties
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.