With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 41(b). A dismissal under Rule 41(b) or any other dismissal “ — except one for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 19 — operates as an adjudication on the merits” unless “the dismissal order states otherwise.” Id. Although the dismissal was not on a defendant’s motion, it may still be considered a dismissal under Rule 41(b), in which case the presumption that the dismissal was an adjudication on the merits would apply. See Brutus v. IRS, 398 Fed.Appx. 682, 688 (11th Cir.2010) (citing Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir.2005)). Even if this dismissal is not a dismissal under Rule 41(b), the presumption still applies. See Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265, 286-87, 81 S.Ct. 534, 545, 5 L.Ed.2d 551 (1961) (<HOLDING>). Because the dismissal order did not state

A: holding that a court may sua sponte dismiss pursuant to rule 41b for failure to comply with a court order
B: holding that an adjudication on summary judgment is an adjudication on the merits
C: holding that a sua sponte dismissal by the court for failure of the plaintiff to comply with an order of the court should operate as an adjudication on the merits because the defendant has been put to the trouble of preparing his defense because there was no initial bar to the courts reaching the merits
D: holding that review is de novo where there has been no adjudication on the merits in state court
C.