Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
436 U.S. at 690-91, 98 S.Ct. 2018; see also Board of County Comm’rs of Bryan County, Okla. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403, 117 S.Ct. 1382, 137 L.Ed.2d 626 (1997) (citing Monell). Counties, like municipalities, cannot be held liable under section 1983 on a respondeat superior theory. See Brown, 520 U.S. at 403, 117 S.Ct. 1382. The county must be the “moving force” behind the injury. See id. át 404, 117 S.Ct. 1382. The district court properly found that Fox has neither alleged nor presented any evidence that Hartrum and Van Oosterum acted pursuant to county policy or custom when they refused to return Fox’s driver’s license. No evidence indicates that this was anything more than a one-time, isolated event for which the county is not responsible. Cf. Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-91, 98 S.Ct. 2018 . Fox also claims that Stewart failed to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a municipality may only be held liable under  1983 for a policy practice or custom
B. holding that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for relief under section 1983
C. holding that a plaintiff must identify a municipal policy custom or practice  to support a claim against a municipality under monell
D. holding that a municipality may not assert the defense of qualified immunity but may be held liable under  1983 only for a constitutional deprivation inflicted by the execution of a governments policy or custom whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy 
E. holding that absent a formal policy a section 1983 plaintiff must establish that the deprivation was  caused by a governmental custom
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.