With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". appeals from the July 28, 2005 judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Arterton, J.) granting Defendants-Appellees’ motions to dismiss his civil-rights complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We presume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and the issues on appeal. “We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor.” Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir.2002). This Court may affirm on any basis evident from the record. See Riverwoods Chappaqua Corp. v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., 30 F.3d 339, 343 (2d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks and citation

A: holding that an appellate court can affirm a district courts order on any basis for which there is a record sufficient to permit conclusions of law including grounds upon which the district court did not rely
B: holding this court may affirm on any grounds supported by the record even if different from the district courts grounds
C: holding that an appellate court may affirm the result reached by a district court on alternative grounds
D: holding that despite a trial courts failure to make specific factual findings an appellate court is free to affirm on any grounds for which there is sufficient record to permit conclusions of law
A.