With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Circuit. See, e.g., Situation Mgmt. Sys., Inc. v. ASP Consulting LLC, 560 F.3d 53, 58 (1st Cir.2009); Continental Grain Co. v. Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping Auth., 972 F.2d 426, 429 n. 7 (1st Cir.1992); Boston Five Cents Sav. Bank v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Hous. and Urban Dev., 768 F.2d 5, 11-12 (1st Cir.1985); Bunch v. W.R. Grace & Co., 532 F.Supp.2d 283, 286-87 (D.Mass.2008). It is a most helpful procedural device. In this session of the Court, it works like this: whenever cross motions for summary judgment reveal that the relevant facts appear without significant dispute, the courtroom deputy clerk offers the parties to treat the case as a case stated. Should they accept, as was the case here, the Court treats the undisputed facts as the established record and draws the reaso . 1998) (<HOLDING>). Neither interpretation of the statute’s plain

A: holding that plaintiffs have a cause of action under 42 usc  1983 where state created an experimental home and communitybased medical program but placed plaintiffs on the waiting list
B: holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc  1983
C: holding that suits under 42 usc  1983 do not override state immunity
D: holding that plaintiffs had claim under 42 usc  1983 against state where state had created an intermediate care facility but placed plaintiffs on waiting list
D.