Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Vakilian v. Shaw, 335 F.3d 509, 518 (6th Cir.2003) (citing United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am. v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825, 828-29, 103 S.Ct. 3352, 77 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1983)). The acts that allegedly “deprived the plaintiff of equal protection must be the result of class-based discrimination.” Id. (citing Newell v. Brown, 981 F.2d 880, 886 (6th Cir.1992)). A plaintiff fails to state an adequate claim if his allegations are premised upon mere conclusions and opinions. Morgan v. Church’s Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir.1987). A plaintiff must make sufficient factual allegations to link two alleged conspirators in the conspiracy and to establish the requisite “meeting of the minds” essential to the existence of the conspiracy. McDowell v. Jones, 990 F.2d 433, 434 (8th Cir.1993) . Coker has failed to properly allege a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for relief under section 1983
B. holding that a plaintiff failed to state a claim for a breach of a joint venture agreement where it failed to allege  responsibility for losses
C. holding that plaintiff failed to state a claim for conspiracy pursuant to  1985 for failure to allege a meeting of the minds
D. holding that plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to allege affirmative misconduct on the part of the government
E. holding that the plaintiff failed to allege breach of a valid and enforceable contract but stated a claim for promissory estoppel
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.