Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Credle-Brown v. Conn. Dep’t. of Children & Families, No. 04-CV1167, 2009 WL 1789430, at *1 (D.Conn. June 24, 2009) (“[T]he Court finds that a plaintiff cannot bring a claim under section 1983 where the deprived federal rights are only those rights guaranteed by the ADA.”); South Middlesex Opportunity Council, Inc. v. Town of Framingham, No. 07-CV-12018, 2008 WL 4595369, at *15-16 (D.Mass. Sept. 30, 2008) (finding that “the FHA contains a comprehensive enforcement mechanism for the rights cited by the Plaintiffs under [42 U.S.C.] § 3604” and therefore concluding “that the FHA enforcement mechanism forecloses complementary relief through § 1983.”); Homebuilders Ass’n of Mississippi Inc. v. City of Brandon, Miss., No. 07-CV-716, 2009 WL 1635763, at *11 n. 3 (S.D. Miss. June 10, 2009) ; Bartlett v. N.Y. State Bd. of Law Examiners,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing the validity of the holding in south middlesex with respect to parallel claims under  3604 of the fha and section 1983
B. holding that in the case where patentee was attempting to argue that parallel meant perpendicular with respect to a particular claim and a claim ended with an incomplete limitation the claims at issue were indefinite
C. holding that the invalidity of a provision for a de novo trial in superior court in the appeal section of an act did not affect the validity of the remainder of the appeal section
D. recognizing such a claim under  1983
E. holding that the states personal injury statutes of limitation should be applied for claims under section 1983
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.