With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Defendants Abbott and Guardsmark argue that Plaintiff Vega fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because private corporations cannot be held liable for violations of the Fourth Amendment. In Bivens, the Supreme Court held that federal officials can sometimes be held liable for constitutional torts committed under the color of federal law. 403 U.S. at 397, 91 S.Ct. 1999. However, it has been well-established that Bivens is not applicable for the purposes of asserting a constitutional claim against a private corporate entity. See Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 122 S.Ct. 515, 151 L.Ed.2d 456 (2001) (foreclosing the extension of a Bivens remedy to the context of employer liability); see also Stoutt v. Banco Popular de P.R., 320 F.3d 26, 33 (1st Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendants

A: holding that a bivens cause of action cannot be maintained against a federal agency
B: holding that no bivens claim existed against a defendant bank that supplied information required by law to the federal bureau of investigations
C: holding ftca claim barred bivens claim the moment judgment was entered against the government
D: holding no action lies under bivens against a private corporation operating a halfway house under a contract with the bureau of prisons
B.