With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". conduct violations in August 2015. (ECF No. 26-1, at 3). Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 28, 2015. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff seeks money damages and injunctive relief. Several weeks later, the action was transferred to this court. (ECF Nos. 16; 17). Plaintiff moved for emergency injunctive relief on September 2 (ECF No. 24), which the court denied (ECF No. 25). Shortly thereafter, Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. (ECF Nos. 26; 27), Plaintiff was provided with a Roseboro notice, which advised him of the pendency of the motion to dismiss and his entitlement to respond within 17 days. (ECF Nos. 28; 29); see Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff responded in opposition, and

A: recognizing responsive pleadings  may be necessary for a pro se plaintiff to clarify his legal theories
B: holding that a defendant has a right to proceed pro se at trial
C: holding that pro se litigants should be given reasonable opportunity to remedy the defects in their pleadings
D: holding that pro se plaintiffs should be advised of their right to file responsive material to a motion for summary judgment
D.