Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a state treats a filing as timely and resolves it on the merits, the federal judiciary will not second-guess that action, for the grievance has served its function of alerting the state and inviting corrective action.”). Dr. Martinez also contends that even if the grievance process was unavailable during the 15-day filing period, Spada was required to exhaust his administrative remedies once he had access to grievance forms. But Dr. Martinez has provided no basis for concluding that Spada’s untimely grievance would have been accepted and resolved on the merits. Notably, there was no requirement that Spada utilize the grievance process after the 15-day period expired, which is the foundation of Dr. Martinez’s position. See, e.g., Small v. Camden Cnty., 728 F.3d 265, 273 (3d Cir.2013) . To be sure, some courts have held that in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an administrative remedy which is unknown and unknowable is unavailable
B. holding that there was no question that the full and fair opportunity element was met where there was no indication that such an opportunity was unavailable
C. holding that administrative remedies are unavailable if prison officials fail to respond to prisoners grievances
D. holding that an administrative remedy was made unavailable after correctional officers did not respond to a grievance and there was no regulation addressing such a situation
E. recognizing that officials failure timely to respond to grievance could be basis for prisoner to show he exhausted available administrative remedies
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.