Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(Tr. 63). Dale Riley, Assistant Director of the Division of Adult Institutions, described Level I as a modern design with an observation bubble or security control area in each wing where an officer can visually observe all cell doors. The locked doors are controlled from that unit. In contrast, Level II and III are older cell units and there is no comparison with Level I in terms of providing security and observation. (Tr. 120). We are satisfied that the statute and regulations at issue contain neither “particularized substantive standards” to guide decisionmakers, Nash, 781 F.2d at 668, nor “mandatory language requiring decisionmakers to act in a certain way,” id, which would be applicable to an inmate already assigned to administrative segregation. See Williams, 852 F.2d at 378-79 . We conclude that the district court did not
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that social workers are not entitled to absolute immunity when deciding whether to open or continue an investigation or when deciding to enter a parents name in a central register of abusers all of which are administrative or investigative by nature rather than prosecutorial
B. holding that social security regulations and procedures precluded a bivens action
C. holding that in deciding whether to request an attorney to represent an indigent plaintiff they should first determine whether the indigents position was likely to be of substance
D. holding that regulations 20121010 20121040 and 20212060 did not contain substantive criteria for the committee to use when deciding whether to reclassify an inmate they merely establish procedures
E. holding that compliance with an officers orders is a material fact when deciding whether the officers use of force was reasonable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.