Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
"show cause” is not defined in our rules, of course, but it has long been employed to denote an order, usually summary, providing notice 'of a hearing. The kind of hearing, its form and procedural requisites, will depend on the questions to be addressed and is not determined merely by the ."show cause” label. Wilcher v. Wilcher, 566 S.W.2d 173 (Ky.App.1978). 18 . While it is well established that individual government officials may be held in criminal' contempt for willfully violating a court order, Commonwealth ex rel. Dep’t of Nat. Res: & Envtl. Prot. v. Williams, 536 S.W.2d 474 (Ky.1976) (citing Wallace v. Sowards, 313 Ky. 360, 231 S.W.2d 10 (1950)), entity liability.is not so clear. Cf. City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 267, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981) ; and 'see Stuart P. Green, The Criminal
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a municipality is immune from punitive damages under 42 usc  1983
B. holding that municipalities are immune from liability for punitive damages under 42 usc  1983 in part because a municipality  can have no malice independent of the malice of its officials damages awarded for punitive purposes therefore are not sensibly assessed against the governmental entity itself
C. holding that punitive damages are not recoverable against municipalities under  1988
D. holding that in employment discrimination cases falling under 42 usc  1983 municipalities are not subject to punitive damages for the actions of government officials
E. holding that punitive damages are not recoverable against municipalities in actions brought pursuant to 42 usc  1983
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.