With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 532 (1992) (interpreting the “by reason of’ language in the civil RICO statute as incorporating common-law principles of proximate causation)). In light of our recent decision in Rothstein, 708 F.3d at 82, we find the Rule 12(b)(6) defendants’ arguments persuasive. First, Rothstein specifically held that a defendant cannot be liable under the ATA on an aiding-and-abetting theory of liability. Id. at 97 (“[W]e are not persuaded that the district court erred in concluding that plaintiffs had not stated a claim on which relief could be granted against UBS on an aiding-and-abetting theory, because it does not appear to us that Congress intended § 2333(a) to permit recovery on such a.theory.”); see also Boim v. Holy Land Found for Relief & Dev., 549 F.3d 685, 689 (7th Cir.2008) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); cf. Cent. Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. at

A: holding that statutory silence on the subject of secondary liability means there is none and section 2333a  does not mention aiders and abettors or other secondary actors
B: holding that foster parents are not state actors
C: holding private actors are not acting under the color of state law for the purposes of section 1983 liability
D: holding that massachusetts statute did not create a sufficiently close nexus between private hospital and the state to warrant labeling private actors state actors
A.