With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to refuse jurisdiction over a challenge to a state tax regime’s allegedly preferential treatment of cable companies over satellite TV companies. DIRECTV, Inc. v. Tolson, 513 F.3d 119, 126-28 (4th Cir.2008). In judging U.S. Brewers to be good law, the Fourth Circuit recognized that Hibbs discussed the Court’s prior comity precedent. Id. at 127. The Fourth Circuit saw this discussion as the Court’s way of “underscoring] the unusual claim before the Court in Hibbs.” Id. The Fourth Circuit also relied on earlier comity precedent for the proposition that “the comity principle underlying the TIA is broader than the Act itself, and its scope is not restricted by [the TIA].” Id. (citing Fair Assessment in Real Estate Ass’n v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100, 110, 102 S.Ct. 177, 70 L.Ed.2d 271 (1981) (<HOLDING>)). The Fourth Circuit also concluded that Hibbs

A: holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc  1983
B: holding that a municipality is immune from punitive damages under 42 usc  1983
C: holding that principles of comity bar challenges to state tax law which seek money damages under 42 usc  1983
D: holding that principles of tort damages on which  42 usc  1983 is grounded require plaintiff to prove actual injury
C.