With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 610, 612 n.1, 2016 WL 4940332, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Va. Sept. 14, 2016); Dimartino v. Seniorcare, No. RDB-15-3788, 2016 WL 3541217, at *4 n.4 (D. Md. June 29, 2016). 4 . Although the parties dispute whether the text messages are actionable against defendants CKC and Stanley, the parties agree that Counts V and VI must be dismissed against Henderson, as she had no role in writing or sending the text messages. 5 . In this regard, defendants do not challenge Count I insofar as this Count alleges a claim against CKC. 6 . See, e.g., United States ex rel. Siewick v. Jamieson Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 322 F.3d 738, 740 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (president and CEO of government contractor was not an "employer”); United States ex rel. Golden v. Ark. Game & Fish Comm’n, 333 F.3d 867, 870-71 (8th Cir. 2003) (<HOLDING>); United States ex rel. Sarafoglou v. Weill

A: holding that constitutional claims against defendants in their individual capacities were precluded by plaintiffs failure to exhaust administrative remedies under pertinent statutory scheme
B: holding that a plaintiffs breach of contract claim failed because he could make no showing that the individual defendants acted in their individual capacities when they signed the contract on behalf of the employer housing authority
C: holding that fca retaliation claim must fail as against defendants sued in their individual capacities because such individuals were not employers
D: holding that claim preclusion barred a plaintiffs action because the individual defendants who were sued both in their official capacities and as individuals stood in privity with the govern mental entities
C.