Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
entitled to relief from the district court’s judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) because the court’s dismissal order violated his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. He appears to argue that the district court’s pretrial dismissal of his complaint under the “dogma” of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009), usurped the jury’s fact-finding role. We cannot agree. Whether to grant a Rule 60(b)(6) motion is within the district court’s sound discretion. Cano v. Baker, 435 F.3d 1337, 1342 (11th Cir.2006) (per curiam). Yeyille has shown no exceptional circumstance that warrants relief. A plaintiffs right to a jury trial is not violated merely because his ease is dismissed before trial. See Garvie v. City of Ft. Walton Beach, 366 F.3d 1186, 1190 (11th Cir.2004) . There is no requirement to conduct a jury
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that dismissal pursuant to federal rule of civil procedure 56 did not violate the seventh amendment
B. holding that directed verdict does not violate seventh amendment
C. holding that the trial court may not grant summary judgment on a ground not raised in the motion
D. holding that seventh amendment right to jury trial not violated by courts dismissal for lack of jurisdiction
E. holding that the courts grant of summary judgment did not violate the plaintiffs seventh amendment right to a jury trial and describing the plaintiffs argument that it did as very misleading
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.