With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Steven D. Orr, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in his action alleging that defendants violated his civil rights by failing to protect his identity as a confidential informant, providing him with defective slippers, and reneging on a deal for parole. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment, Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 852 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Orr’s failure to protect claim because the record did not present a triable issue as to whether Fauliss was deliberately indifferent to Orr’s safety. Cf. Wood v. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583, 588 (9th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, Orr failed to create a triable

A: holding that plaintiff who provides evidence of acts more severe than a lack of due care may withstand summary judgment motion on a failure to protect claim
B: recognizing emotional distress claim brought by patient who argued that sexual intimacy with psychotherapist provided sufficient evidence of actual physical injury to withstand motion for summary judgment
C: holding that a plaintiff may not raise a new legal claim in response to summary judgment
D: holding therefore that although defendants failure to provide plaintiff with sufficient notice of termination and a pretermination hearing violated his right to procedural due process defendants motion for summary judgment should be granted insofar as it seeks to bar plaintiff from recovering more than a nominal amount
A.