Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the First Amendment framework. There is simply no support in the affidavits for a conclusion that Liotta’s disputes involved his freedoms of belief and association, or the related right to be free from the imposition of an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of a public benefit, the interests implicated under Elrod v. Burns. Accordingly, the affidavits did not raise a material issue of fact so as to preclude the granting of summary judgment. They certainly do not tend to establish that Liotta was discharged by reason of “partisan political affiliation,” the act interdicted for certain public employees in Elrod v. Burns. See Burns v. County of Cambria, 971 F.2d at 1021; Zold v. Township of Mantua, 935 F.2d at 635; cf. Sanguigni v. Pittsburgh Bd. of Public Ed., 968 F.2d at 401 . We recognize that Liotta testified in a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that conclusory allegation of conspiracy without supporting factual averments insufficient to state claim
B. holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property
C. holding that allegations against nondiverse defendants must be factual not conclusory because conclusory allegations do not state a claim
D. holding plaintiffs property interest claim could not be based on a conclusory allegation citing past practices
E. holding affidavits based on conclusory allegations insufficient at summary judgment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.