Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
cause for a valid arrest), and, as discussed above, nothing — including Judge Nelson’s order — affected this belief. The BCDC Ap-pellees’ knowledge of Judge Nelson’s order cannot, as Mr. Reed would have it, be equated with a knowledge of an unlawful detention. 2. One-Hour Delay in Release Mr. Reed also suggests he has claims pursuant to § 1983 and the New Mexico Tort Claims Act because, after Judge Murdoch ordered his release, a BCDC employee detained him one hour longer than the other prisoners for being a “sniffler.” As a preliminary matter, we note that none of the BCDC Appellees was involved in the delay. Consequently, Mr. Reed has no § 1983 claims against the BCDC Appellees, regardless of the lawfulness of the detention. See Foote v. Spiegel, 118 F.3d 1416, 1423 (10th Cir.1997) . As for claims of false imprisonment, neither
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that section 1983 action requires a showing of defendants personal participation in alleged constitutional violation
B. holding that denial of a grievance by itself without any connection to the violation of constitutional rights alleged by plaintiff does not establish personal participation under  1983
C. holding that individual liability under  1983 must be based on personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation
D. holding that liability in a  1983 action must be predicated on personal involvement not on the basis of respondeat superior
E. holding that a constitutional violation by a subordinate is a predicate for supervisory liability under  1983
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.