With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". State is not a person within the meaning of § 1983.” Will v. Michigan State Department of Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2309, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989). A “State” includes governmental entities, such as GMS, that are “arms of the State.” Id. at 70, 109 S.Ct. at 2312. The same analysis applies to the individual defendants, each of whom the plaintiff has named in their official capacity. Although state officials literally are “persons,” a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the official’s office. Id. As such, it is no different from a suit against the State itself. Id. at 71, 109 S.Ct. at 2312; Abusaid v. Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners, 405 F.3d 1298, 1302 (11th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159,

A: holding that a section 1983 suit against an officer in his or her official capacity is simply another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent
B: holding that an official capacity suit should be treated as a suit against the entity
C: holding that a damages suit against a state officer in his official capacity was barred because it was functionally a suit against the state
D: holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is a suit against the state itself and not cognizable under  1983
A.