Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
or employee, (2) perform a federal function, and (3) be subject to supervision by a federal officer or employee. 5 U.S.C. § 2105(a) (1988). See Hedman v. United States, 15 Cl.Ct. 304, 313 (1988); Lambert v. United States, 4 Cl.Ct. 303, 305, aff'd, 746 F.2d 1490 (Fed.Cir.1984). 5 . Thus, for example, a plaintiff with a contract claim for an amount greater than $10,000 could not sue in the District Court under section 702 for specific performance of her contract; she may only sue in the Claims Court for appropriate relief. See H.R.Rep. No. 1656 at 12-13. In addition to the limitation on section 702, section 704 of the APA bars District Court jurisdiction over claims for which an adequate remedy in another court exists. 5 U.S.C. § 704 (1988). See Bowen, 487 U.S. at 904, 108 S.Ct. at 2737 . In Mitchell v. United States, 930 F.2d 893
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that section 704 does not bar district court jurisdiction when the claims court does not provide a special and adequate review procedure for that claim
B. holding that the court does not have jurisdiction to review per curiam decisions of the district courts of appeal that merely affirm with citations to cases not pending review in this court
C. holding that this court does not have jurisdiction over plaintiffs claims because the court may review neither criminal matters nor the decisions of district courts
D. holding that this court does not have jurisdiction over plain tiffs claims because the court may review neither criminal matters nor the decisions of district courts
E. holding that a jail inmate does not have a constitutional entitlement to an adequate grievance procedure and the ineffectiveness or even absence of a grievance procedure does not give rise to a constitutional claim
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.