With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1134 (4th Cir.1993). Prousalis’ complaint alleged malicious abuse of process, malicious prosecution, conspiracy under the Virginia Business Conspiracy Statute, and civil conspiracy. Virginia law applies to each claim. See Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). In his complaint, Prousalis alleged the Appellees filed two frivolous complaints against him alleging, inter aha, legal malpractice in a malicious effort to “humble and embarrass” him. These actions, Prousalis further claimed, resulted in damage to his “reputation, trade, business and profession.” We find Prousalis failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under any of the legal theories advanced in his complaint. See Ross v. Peck Iron & Metal, Co., 264 F.2d 262, 268 (4th Cir.1959) (<HOLDING>); Ely v. Whitlock, 238 Va. 670, 385 S.E.2d 893

A: holding that judicial privilege does not apply to the appellants claims for wrongful use of civil proceedings and abuse of process
B: holding that to establish a claim for abuse of process a claimant must demonstrate  an act in the use of the process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceedings
C: holding that continued possession and unrestricted use constitutes regular use
D: holding regular use of process cannot constitute abuse of process
D.