Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
withstand a motion to dismiss should be denied. Richardson v. United States, 193 F.3d 545, 548-49 (D.C.Cir.1999). The second amended complaint does not cure the deficiencies outlined in the proceeding text of this opinion; however, the plaintiffs maintain that "§ 1983 claims brought against city officials in their personal capacity are not subject to the exhaustion requirement.” Pls.' Supp. Mem. at 4 n. 2. But, there appears to be no basis in law for this distinction. See Johnson v. Dist. of Columbia, 368 F.Supp.2d 30, 34 (D.D.C.2005) (maintaining claims against defendants in their individual capacities because District of Columbia's motion to dismiss explicitly restricted scope of motion to defendants in their official capacities); Runkle v. Gonzales, 391 F.Supp.2d 210 (D.D.C.2005) . The court, therefore, denies the plaintiffs'
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that partys failure to file a timely internal administrative appeal as required by regulations of the department of agriculture constituted failure to exhaust administrative remedies and precluded judicial action
B. holding there is no statutory requirement that a taxpayer exhaust administrative remedies before filing a complaint in the tax court
C. holding that constitutional claims against defendants in their individual capacities were precluded by plaintiffs failure to exhaust administrative remedies under pertinent statutory scheme
D. holding that claims not presented to the ij and bia should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies
E. holding that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies by failing to include issue in case brief
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.