With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Court, the jury’s factual finding that defendant’s actions were consistent with his police training (and that he believed them to be consistent) indicates that those actions would not be found “clearly unlawful.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151. Accordingly, the District Court judgment is affirmed. Plaintiff also appeals from the District Court’s May 11, 2001 order granting summary judgment dismissing his claim of malicious prosecution. Regardless of the merits of the District Court’s approach to this question, a jury has now determined that defendant had probable cause to arrest plaintiff, and that finding negates one element necessary for success on a malicious prosecution claim. See, e.g., Medforms, Inc. v. Healthcare Mgmt. Solutions, Inc., 290 F.3d 98, 115 (2d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). We reject plaintiffs remaining contentions

A: holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed
B: holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that motion for summary judgment was not opposed
C: holding that question regarding district courts decision on summary judgment was moot in light of jury verdict negating another element of the claim
D: holding that where the meaning of the jurys verdict was not clear in light of the trial courts jury instructions the court of appeals erred in directing entry of judgment for respondent the case should have been remanded to the trial judge who was in the best position to pass upon the question of a new trial in light of the evidence his charge to the jury and the jurys verdict
C.