With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Joe Newman appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force during an arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. Long v. City & County of Honolulu, 511 F.3d 901, 905 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because, in light of the video recording of the incident from Officer Williams’ patrol car, no reasonable jury could credit Newman’s account of the arrest and find that defendants used an unreasonable amount of force. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) (<HOLDING>); Espinosa v. City & County of San Francisco,

A: holding that when opposing parties tell two different stories one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record so that no reasonable jury could believe it a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment
B: holding that summary judgment should have been granted because motorists version of facts was utterly discredited by videotape of incident
C: holding that when a video recording of an alleged excessive force incident contradicts the nonmoving partys version of the incident to the extent that no reasonable jury could believe it a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment
D: holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion
C.