With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Dismiss (Doc. No. 9) is GRANTED and Plaintiffs claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 1 . This case comes before Judge Donovan W. Frank of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota pursuant to an Order of Transfer dated February 24, 2003, and from assignment by the Honorable David R. Hansen, then-Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit. Judge Hansen stepped down as Chief Judge at the close of business on March 31, 2003, and was succeeded by the Honorable James B. Loken. 2 . Judge Griffen’s asserts that the Eastern District of Arkansas' unpublished opinion in Donovan v. Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission points in a different direction. See Civ. No. LR-C-92-255 (Sept. 23, 1993) (<HOLDING>). However, because Huffman was decided more

A: holding that district courts findings were not clearly erroneous where there was  sufficient evidence  that the defendants waiver of his rights was knowing and intelligent
B: holding that district court had no jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs claims that his constitutional rights were violated in state divorce proceeding
C: holding that district courts abstention was inappropriate because there was no ongoing state proceeding in which the admonished judge could vindicate his constitutional rights
D: holding that district judges failure to recuse was harmless error where the underlying question was patently clear and so there was no need to vacate the district courts decision and to remand to another district court judge to make the same clear determination
C.