Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
County Jail officers’ alleged unconstitutional actions, his liability must be based on something more than the theo L.Ed.2d 461 (1991). “The inquiry into causation must be a directed one, focusing on the duties and responsibilities of each ... individual defendant] whose acts or omissions are alleged to have resulted in a constitutional deprivation.” Williams v. Bennett, 689 F.2d 1370, 1381 (11th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 932, 104 S.Ct. 335, 78 L.Ed.2d 305 (1983). See also Swint v. City of Wadley, 5 F.3d 1435, 1446-47 (11th Cir.l993)(finding liability where sheriff was on notice of prior similar incident, thus inferring notice), vacated 514 U.S. 35, 115 S.Ct. 1203, 131 L.Ed.2d 60 (1995)(vacated for lack of jurisdiction); Rivas v. Freeman, 940 F.2d 1491, 1495 (11th Cir.l991); Kerr v. City of West Palm Beach, 875 F.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding sheriff liable for inter alia failing to properly investigate possible battery
B. holding no liability existed under the circumstances
C. holding summary judgment appropriate where plaintiff failed to establish product identification
D. holding a sheriff could not be liable for implementing county policies where no underlying violation of decedents rights had occurred
E. holding supervisory liability existed where sheriff failed to establish policies regarding accurate identification of suspects and where sheriff knew of prior instances of mistaken identity
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.