Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Judgment A summary judgment motion must be granted if there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact,” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986), not, as Appellant states, “if there are any genuine issues of fact.” “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). In considering the motion for summary judgment, the district court properly relied on the state trial transcript and not solely on Walker’s Rule 56 pleadings. See Covalt v. Carey Canada, Inc., 950 F.2d 481, 485 (7th Cir.1991) ; Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). We review a grant of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding district court not required to uncover disputed facts when considering summary judgment motion
B. holding that the entire record may be examined when considering a summary judgment motion
C. holding that by considering matters outside of the pleadings the trial court converted a rule 12b6 motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion
D. holding district court did not err by considering a contract central to the dispute without converting the motion to a motion for summary judgment
E. holding that where a court considering a rule 12b6 motion relies on matters outside the pleading the motion must be treated as a rule 56 motion for summary judgment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.