Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
prison officials based on Ware’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We affirm, adding only the following comments. First, Ware has not shown that the district court erred in failing to find that defendants waived the exhaustion requirement. Defendants raised a failure-to-exhaust defense in their answer and in a renewed motion for summary judgment. Ware did not assert any prejudice, nor do we perceive any, as he was on notice of the exhaustion requirement and had ample time to oppose the renewed summary judgment motion. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering the defendants’ failure-to-exhaust defense. See Guzman-Rivera v. Rivera-Cruz, 98 F.3d 664, 668 (1st Cir.1996) . Also, Ware has not shown that the district
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that such a decision was within the trial courts discretion
B. holding that laches is an affirmative defense
C. holding that decision on waiver of affirmative defense normally is within district courts discretion
D. holding burden of proof is on one asserting an affirmative defense
E. holding that fair use is an affirmative defense
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.