Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Koenig v. Perez, 104 N.M. 664, 665, 726 P.2d 341, 342 (1986)); Garrity v. Overland Sheeps kin Co. of Taos, 121 N.M. 710, 718, 917 P.2d 1382, 1390 (1996) (same); Tabet Lumber Co. v. Romero, 117 N.M. 429, 431, 872 P.2d 847, 849 (1994) (same). At issue in the vast majority of summary judgment eases presented to New Mexico’s appellate courts is the first prong; that is, whether there are genuine issues of material fact. See, e.g., Silva v. Town of Springer, 121 N.M. 428, 433, 912 P.2d 304, 309, (Ct.App.) (concluding that a material disputed factual issue existed precluding the grant of summary judgment), cert. denied, 121 N.M. 375, 911 P.2d 883, and cert. denied, 121 N.M. 444, 913 P.2d 251 (1996); Blauwkamp v. University of N.M. Hosp., 114 N.M. 228, 233, 836 P.2d 1249, 1254 (Ct.App.1992) . In such cases, the rationale behind the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the existence of genuine issues of material facts render not appealable a pretrial denial of summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity
B. holding that the function of the trial court on a motion for summary judgment is to determine whether issues of fact exist and not to decide the merits of the issues themselves
C. holding that when there are no genuine issues of material fact summary judgment is appropriate
D. holding that a probable cause determination is appropriate for summary judgment where there are no genuine issues of material fact and no credibility issues
E. holding that plaintiffs re sponse to defendants motion for summary judgment indicated the existence of material issues of fact
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.