With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". must also satisfy the jurisdictional requirement present in every § 1983 action that the “claimed deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” Haines v. Fisher, 82 F.3d 1503, 1508 (10th Cir.1996); Jojola v. Chavez, 55 F.3d 488, 492 (10th Cir.1995) (“The under color of state law requirement is a jurisdictional requisite for a § 1983 action.”) (internal quotations omitted). If a plaintiff can establish these elements, a defendant has infringed a plaintiffs procedural due process rights if it failed to provide a “name-clearing hearing.” See Roth, 408 U.S. at 573 n. 12, 92 S.Ct. 2701 (stating that, where a liberty interest is implicated, due process requires notice and a hearing to “provide the person an opportunity to clear his name”); Tonkovich, 159 F.3d at 526 (<HOLDING>). Miller makes three arguments related to

A: holding that where no factual dispute is raised no hearing is required
B: holding that no constitutional violation may occur if a procedurally proper nameclearing hearing is provided
C: holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation
D: holding that absent evidence to the contrary court proceedings are presumed to be procedurally proper
B.