Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
captioned case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.” Defendants’ brief is silent on the issue of jurisdiction. At oral argument, the parties agreed Count II is a state claim over which the district court had supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), because Counts I and II “form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.” We agree. A plaintiff may not bring a state claim under the aegis of § 1983, so if Count II states a plausible claim, our jurisdiction is predicated on § 1367(a), not § 1331. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (providing a cause of action for “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States); West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988) ; Flynn v. Sandahl, 58 F.3d 283, 290 (7th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that in order to prevail under  1983 a plaintiff must show 1 that defendants deprived him or her of a right secured by the constitution or laws of the united states and 2 that in doing so defendants acted under color of state law internal quotation marks omitted
B. holding that the plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants contacts with the united states as a whole support the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with the constitution and laws of the united states
C. holding a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the constitution and laws of the united states to state a claim under  1983
D. recognizing objective standard applicable under 42 usc  1983 and suits under united states constitution
E. holding that to prevail on a  1983 claim a plaintiff must allege that the defendant acted under color of state law in other words that there was state action
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.