Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
States Bureau of Prisons, 413 F.3d 1225, 1238 (10th Cir.2005); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (directing district court to screen prisoner cases early and dismiss defective claims). Second, Mr. Tauer is correct that the administrative-exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional; failure to exhaust does not divest this court of the power to (10th Cir.2005) (applying applicable state statute of limitations to § 1983 action); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-513(a)(3) & (4) (supplying two-year limitations for actions based on fraud or injury to the rights of another). Mr. Tauer maintains that as long as he filed his grievance within two years after his constitutional rights were denied, federal litigation is not foreclosed. This court has specifically rejected this position. Ross, 365 F.3d at 1186 . Mr. Tauer also challenges the regulation
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding cases are not authority for propositions not considered
B. holding that consequential damages are not to be considered
C. holding that an issue not presented to the trial court will not be considered on appeal
D. holding timebarred grievance is not considered exhausted
E. holding that where issues were not considered by the bia remand is appropriate
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.