With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". activity nor is it inextricably tied to matters requiring the exercise of discretion. Rather, it is a discrete activity, sufficiently separable from protected discretionary decisions to make the discretionary function exception inapplicable to this allegation. We express no view whether the allegation is otherwise cognizable under the FTCA or whether it is supported by the evidence. We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part and remand to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. So ordered. 1 . The postal inspector defendants-appellees are Michael Hartman, Frank Korman, Robert Edwards, Pierce McIntosh, Daniel Harrington and Norman Robbins. 2 . Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) (<HOLDING>). 3 . The complaint also asserted other

A: recognizing cause of action
B: recognizing an action for damages against unknown federal agents for the violation of constitutional rights
C: recognizing cause of action for damages against federal agents acting under their authority who allegedly violated plaintiffs fourth amendment rights
D: recognizing a cause of action for damages against officials who violate constitutional or statutory rights under color of federal law
D.