With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". have said so. See, e.g., Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 704 (“Agency action made reviewable by statute and final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court are subject to judicial review. A preliminary, procedural, or intermediate agency action or ruling not directly reviewable is subject to review on the review of the final agency action.”). Where a federal statute provides for an unqualified right of review, it is impermissible to imply either an additional administrative requirement originating in state law (i.e. a finality requirement) or to recognize an exhaustion requirement by implication. See W. Radio Serv. Co. v. Qwest Corp., 530 F.3d 1186, 1195, n. 6 (9th Cir.2008) (citing AT & T Commc’n Sys. v. Pac. Bell, 203 F.3d 1183, 1184 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>) ). Therefore, despite DRN’s and PADEP’s

A: recognizing that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to bringing a  1983 action
B: holding that a courts authority to require exhaustion of administrative remedies in actions brought under the apa is limited when neither the statute nor agency rules specifically mandate exhaustion as a prerequisite to judicial review
C: holding that exhaustion is not required because the structure of the federal statute shows that congress did not intend to incorporate varying state exhaustion requirements into federal law as a prerequisite to federal district court review
D: recognizing that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not required as a prerequisite to bringing an action pursuant to  1983
C.