Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
access to firearms, “could be construed as conscience-shocking” behavior sufficient to render summary judgment inappropriate). As pled, Booker and Peagler ignored known or likely injuries and abuse to Chandler, chose not to further investigate such possible abuse, and ignored the danger posed by his continued residence in Jon Phillips’s home. See Currier v. Doran, 242 F.3d 905, 920 (10th Cir.2001) (finding caseworker’s failure to investigate bruises and continued allegations of abuse, as well as responsibility for court order granting custody to caretaker, could be conscience-shocking behavior sufficient to survive dismissal). Of course, discovery may inform the context of Booker’s and Peagler’s actions such that their behavior was not conscience shocking. See Weise, 507 F.3d at 1265 . However, construing all inferences in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that the denial of qualified immunity at the dismissal stage does not preclude a renewal of that defense at summary judgment after further factual development has occurred
B. recognizing that interlocutory appeals are permitted both at appeal of denial at dismissal stage and at later appeal of denial of summary judgment after further factual development
C. holding that factual disputes will result in denial of summary judgment only when they pertain to the qualified immunity defense
D. holding that credibility determinations should not be resolved at the summary judgment stage
E. holding that an interlocutory appeal lies from a denial of summary judgment on a qualified immunity claim
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.