Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
459 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Because the order on appeal simply remands the petition back to the administrative law judge for further proceedings (i.e., a formal hearing), it is not a final order. Furthermore, O’Donnell’s has not established the alternative ground for review under section 120.68. Review of the final agency action would provide an adequate remedy. Consequently, we do not have jurisdiction to review it under section 120.68 and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110. APPEAL DISMISSED. SAWAYA, C.J., concurs, and concurs specially with opinion. ORFINGER, J., dissents with opinion. 1 . We considered the possibility of treating this appeal as a petition for writ of prohibition. See, e.g., Dept. of Health and Rehab. Servs. v. Career Serv. Com’n, 448 So.2d 18 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) . However, prior opinions uniformly hold that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the superior court may not issue writs of prohibition to review an order denying recusal before final judgment
B. holding that district courts have power to issue writs of prohibition to administrative agencies to prevent them from exceeding their jurisdiction
C. holding that district court had jurisdiction to consider claims under the all writs act
D. recognizing the supreme courts longstanding jurisdiction over writs of prohibition and mandamus to courts of inferior jurisdiction
E. holding prohibition lies to prevent a lower tribunal from acting in excess of its jurisdiction but not to prevent an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.