Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Cir.2005)[“[T]he District Court lack[s] subject matter jurisdiction under the FTCA to provide injunctive and declaratory relief’]; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). Therefore, Plaintiffs claims under the FTCA are without merit, and should be dismissed. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Defendant Berry and Paul’s motion for summary judgment with respect to Plaintiffs Bivens claim concerning his placement in the SHU on August 31, 2001 be denied. In all other respects, the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment should be granted. September 7, 2006. 1 . To the extent any of Plaintiffs claims relate to his transfer to FCI-Florence, or conditions of confinement at Florence, they are not properly before this court. See Ajaj v. Smith, 108 Fed.Appx. 743 (4th Cir.2004) . 2 . The text of this order reads as follows:
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a subsequent action was not barred because the initial court did not have jurisdiction over the claim
B. holding that ajaj did not have a protected liberty interest in remaining at fciedgefield and finding that this court was without jurisdiction over anyone with responsibility for  conditions at fciflorence in part because no one with responsibility over that facility was named in that action but noting that the decision was without prejudice to ajajs right to challenge the conditions of his fciflorence confinement in the district court in colorado
C. recognizing a liberty interest in reasonably safe conditions of confinement
D. holding that because the circuit court did not have subjectmatter jurisdiction over the unlawfuldetainer action the district courts unauthorized transfer of the action could not transfer jurisdiction over that action to the circuit court
E. holding over
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.