Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
been dismissed, that a wife “cannot state a claim for loss of consortium due to any alleged violation of [her husband’s] civil rights under Section 1983” (citing. Niehus, 973 F.2d at 533-34)); McNabb v. City of Memphis, No. 03-2334 ML/P, 2004 WL 2384958, at *6 (W.D.Tenn. Mar.8, 2004) (dismissing wife’s loss-of-consortium claim “as [it] relates to the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim because a § 1983 claim is personal to the individual claiming injury,” without further discussion except to note that “[p]laintiffs concedefd] that [wife] may not recover for loss of consortium pursuant to § 1983”; however, because plaintiffs also brought state law claims, wife’s loss-of-consortium claim in connection with those was not dismissed); Hakken v. Washtenaw County, 901 F.Supp. 1245, 1255 (E.D.Mich.1995) ; Jenkins v. Carruth, 583 F.Supp. 613, 616
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing cause of action for loss of consortium
B. holding without discussion that since the state tort claims are dismissed there can be no claim for loss of consortium
C. holding that a claim for loss of consortium  cannot stand because there is no evidence of bodily injury sustained
D. holding that wifes recovery for loss of consortium should not be reduced by the proportion of negligence attributable to husband because claim for loss of consortium is independent of the damages claim of the injured spouse
E. recognizing loss of consortium claims
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.