Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
its face’ ” with respect to his retaliation claims. In re Katrina Canal, 495 F.3d at 205 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp., 127 S.Ct. at 1974); see Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1164-66 (5th Cir. 1995). For similar reasons, these claims do not lack “an arguable basis in law or fact.” Berry, 192 F.3d at 507. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s judgment in part and remand for further consideration of Burnette’s retaliation claims. Because Burnette’s brief on appeal does not address the district court’s denial of his motions for a temporary restraining order, for appointment of counsel below, for an evidentiary hearing, or for leave to amend his complaint a second time, any objections to the denial of these motions are deemed abandoned. See Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir.1995) ; Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that although a pro se litigants pleadings are construed liberally a pro se litigant must still follow the same rules that govern other litigants including the requirement of constructing and supporting arguments with legal authority
B. holding that pro se pleadings will be liberally construed
C. holding that although pro se briefs are liberally construed even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them
D. holding that although pro se litigants are entitled to liberal construction of their pleadings pro se litigants must follow procedural rules
E. holding that pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.