With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". VanHarken v. City of Chicago, 103 F.3d 1346, 1349 (7th Cir.1997) {Patsy expressly rejected a requirement of exhausting administrative remedies before suing under § 1983); Jeremy H. v. Mt. Lebanon Sch. Dist., 95 F.3d 272, 283 n. 20 (3d Cir.1996) (“the policies of section 1983 strongly disfavor the imposition of additional exhaustion requirements”); Thornquest v. King, 61 F.3d 837, 841 n. 3 (11th Cir.1995) (“a section 1983 claim cannot be barred by a plaintiff’s failure to exhaust state administrative remedies with respect to an unreviewed administrative action”); Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1165 (5th Cir.1995) (“[EJxhaustion of state judicial or administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to the bringing of a section 1983 claim.”); Wilbur v. Harris, 53 F.3d 542, 544 (2d Cir. 1995) (<HOLDING>); Hall v. Marion Sch. Dist. No. Two, 31 F.3d

A: recognizing that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not required as a prerequisite to bringing an action pursuant to  1983
B: holding that the timely filing of an administrative charge of discrimination is a prerequisite to bringing suit
C: holding that exhaustion of administrative remedies is a mandatory prerequisite to a lawsuit under foia
D: holding that exhaustion of administrative ie company or planprovided remedies is an implicit prerequisite to seeking judicial relief pursuant to erisa
A.