Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
punitive damages against Defendants Ekstrom, Sockwell, and Walker. “Punitive damages are available against individual [government officials] in a § 1983 claim only where the [officials’] ‘conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.’” Dubner v. City and County of San Francisco, 266 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir.2001) (citing Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56, 103 S.Ct. 1625, 75 L.Ed.2d 632 (1983)). As discussed above, Ekstrom, Sockwell, and Walker are dismissed from this action in their individual capacities. Plaintiff is therefore precluded from seeking punitive damages against them. See City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 271, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981) . Moreover, even if Ekstrom, Sock-well, or
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the officials office
B. holding that punitive damages are not recoverable against a state official sued in his or her official capacity
C. holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is a suit against the state itself and not cognizable under  1983
D. holding that state and its officers sued in their official capacity for damages are not persons suable under  1983
E. holding state of north carolina and state official sued in their official capacity are immune from  1983 and  1985 actions in federal court
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.