Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
limitations period during the pendency of the original action when the original action was dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. Mississippi courts have never addressed this question per se. ¶ 27. Specifically, Benny cites, among others, King v. Lujan, 98 N.M. 179, 646 P.2d 1243 (1982), and Sluka v. Herman, 229 Neb. 200, 425 N.W.2d 891 (1988). In King, the New Mexico Supreme Court held that “[ajfter a consideration of the purpose and policies underlying Rule 41, we adopt the view that even though the filing of a suit ordinarily tolls the applicable limitations period, when an action is dismissed without prejudice because of a failure to prosecute, the interruption is considered as never having occurred.” King, 646 P.2d at 1244-45. Th D.La.1977) (applying Louisiana law) ; Barrentine v. Vulcan Materials Co., 216 So.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding neither a lack of prejudice to the defendant nor the running of the statute of limitations constitutes good cause
B. holding that although the filing of suit and service of citation interrupt the running of the statute its dismissal for want of prosecution will have the same effect as if the suit had never been filed
C. holding that filing of suit ordinarily interrupts the running of prescription but when the action is dismissed without prejudice because of plaintiffs failure to prosecute the interruption in the running of the statute is considered as never having occurred
D. holding that the running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense
E. holding that the initial filing of a suit later voluntarily dismissed is not the effective date of a second suit because a voluntary dismissal does not toll or affect in any way the continuous running of the applicable statutory time period
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.