Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
implicated system-wide discrimination they would have unquestionably involvedia matter of “public concern.” See Marshall v. Allen, 984 F.2d 787 (7th Cir.1993) (allowing Section 1983 claim where plaintiff was discharged following his support of other employees who had filed suit for gender discrimination); Wilson v. UT Health Ctr., 973 F.2d 1263, 1266 ( .2d 749 (1991). In the instant case there is no indication that the plaintiff “wanted to debate issues of sex discrimination,” that her suit sought “relief against pervasive or systemic misconduct by a public agency or public officials,” or that her suit was “part of an overall effort ... to correct allegedly unlawful practices or bring them to public attention.” Yatvin v. Madison Metro. School Dist., 840 F.2d 412, 420 (7th Cir.1988) . Although evidence was subsequently uncovered
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for relief under section 1983
B. holding that plaintiffs complaint failed to state a claim under section 1 of the sherman act
C. recognizing such a claim under  1983
D. holding that claim brought under section 1983 of the civil rights act constituted a personal injury tort claim because section 1983 confers a general remedy for injuries to personal rights
E. holding state is not a proper defendant under  1983
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.