With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". when his property is searched. Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 590-91, 104 S.Ct. 3227, 82 L.Ed.2d 438 (1984). In addition, random and unauthorized deprivations of property do not violate the Due Process Clause if the state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. Although Oklahoma has not waived tort liability for claims arising out of the administration of prisons, see Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 155(24), a prisoner has a remedy against the state in the form of a replevin action based on contract, see Gibson v. Copeland, 13 P.3d 989, 991-92 (Okla. Ct.App.2000). Plaintiff is incorrect in arguing that a post-deprivation remedy does not cure a due process violation when the deprivation was intentional. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984) (<HOLDING>). The judgment is AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED

A: holding that postdeprivation tort remedy constitutes all the process that is due for unauthorized negligent and intentional torts by state officials
B: holding postdeprivation remedy is adequate even when deprivation was intentional
C: holding that a prison guards intentional destruction of a prisoners possessions did not give rise to a federal due process claim because state law provided an adequate postdeprivation tort remedy
D: holding that meaningful postdeprivation hearing is sufficient to remedy unauthorized intentional deprivations of inmates property
B.