With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Shenandoah Women’s Ctr., 757 F.2d 1435, 1437 (4th Cir.1985). Here, Plaintiff fails to establish an entitlement to attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 because Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss has not unreasonably multiplied the proceedings in this case. As to § 1927, “[a]ny attorney ... who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct.” 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (2006). Section 1927 sanctions are imposed on attorneys who greatly multiply the proceedings and typically “the filing of a single [document] cannot be held to have multiplied the proceedings unreasonably and vexatiously. ...” In re Gould, 77 Fed.Appx. 155, 163 (4th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); DeBauche v. Trani, 191 F.3d 499, 511 (4th

A: holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its ruling whether to proceed with a declaratory judgment action
B: holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorneys fees against attorney who multiplied the proceedings by failing to adhere to trial judges evidentiary ruling
C: holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding prejudgment interest on attorneys fees paid prior to the entry of judgment
D: holding trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to physicians in absence of any evidence of attorneys fees
B.