With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Significantly, however, the Complaint does not allege that the destruction of the tape substantially reduced the likelihood of Brown’s obtaining relief. Indeed, the Complaint itself acknowledges that the videotape is not essential to the litigation of this matter because the events of July 27, 2003, may be recreated through witness testimony. While the destruction of the tape may make it more difficult or costly for Brown to try this case, and may arguably amount to a discovery violation, there is nothing in the Complaint to suggest that the defendants conduct rendered Brown’s access to the courts ineffective or meaningless. Brown has therefore failed to allege a violation of her constitutional right to access to the courts. See, e.g., Monroe v. Beard, 536 F.3d 198, 206 (3d Cir. 2008) (<HOLDING>); see also Foster v. City of Lake Jackson, 28

A: holding that absent any actual evidence of injury the plaintiffs allegations were too vague to establish the jurisdictional floor for damages
B: holding that the district court did not err in finding that the plaintiff failed to provide adequate notice of new allegations where the plaintiffs complaint gave the defendants no notice of the specific factual allegations presented for the first time in the plaintiffs opposition to summary judgment
C: holding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of the right to access to the courts based on allegations that the defendants confiscated their litigation materials absent any allegation that such materials were critical to pursuing the plaintiffs underlying claims
D: holding that the plaintiffs argument rebutting the defendants legitimate nondiscriminatory reason on the plaintiffs discrimination claim also rebutted the defendants reason on the plaintiffs retaliation claim because they were the same
C.