Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Ind. Admin. Code 1-4.” 405 Ind. Admin. Code l-l-3(a). Those provisions offer the Providers a right to request an administrative hearing on the denial before an administrative law judge (ALJ). 470 Ind. Admin. Code 1-4-3 to 1-4-5. Subsequently, they may seek an agency review of the ALJ’s decision. 470 Ind. Admin. Code 1-4-6. Finally, if still dissatisfied, the Providers may seek judicial review. 470 Ind. Admin. Code 1-4-7. Tellingly, the Providers have not challenged the adequacy of these appellate remedies, nor even acknowledged FSSA’s argument that these remedies exist. Easter House, 910 F.2d at 1405 (assuming that the state’s offered remedies were adequate because the parties gave little attention to the issue); Kauth v. Hartford Ins. Co. of Ill., 852 F.2d 951, 955-56 (7th Cir.1988) . Further, there is no evidence that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a plaintiff could not proceed on her procedural due process claim brought under  1983 because she did not show that she had exhausted her state law remedies or alleged that those remedies were inadequate
B. holding that the plaintiff has not raised a colorable claim that he was denied procedural due process because he did not allege that the available state remedies are constitutionally inadequate
C. holding that the state courts determination that the petitioner could not show prejudice because he did not allege that the witness was available to testify was a reasonable application of federal law to the facts of the case
D. holding that we could not review an aliens colorable due process claim that an ij was not impartial because the alien raised the claim for the first time on appeal
E. holding that the defendant was denied due process because the procedural rule was not followed in any respect by the trial court
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.