With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in any case, outside the scope of his federal duties as a VA employee. Claus does not, however, deny that at all relevant times Gyorkey was ostensibly acting on behalf of the VA. Indeed, Claus never challenged Gyorkey’s removal petition. Claus contends that Gyorkey was wearing two hats, as both a federal and a private employee, when he recruited Claus and that he should accordingly not be entitled to government immunity for acts undertaken, at least in part, on behalf of Baylor. Claus misapprehends the nature of federal officials’ immunity. The applicable law is clear. Absent an allegation of a tort of constitutional magnitude, federal officials are entitled to absolute immunity for ordinary torts committed within the scope of their jobs. Evans v. Wright, 582 F.2d 20 (5th Cir. 1978) (<HOLDING>). The district court here properly summarized

A: recognizing the restrictive holding of butz v economou 438 us 478 98 sct 2894 57 led2d 895 1978 as applicable only to actions amounting to constitutional violations
B: holding that a decision of the court of appeals could not be understood merely to illuminate  the supreme courts decision in arizona v washington 434 us 497 98 sct 824 54 led2d 717 1978 which had considered the breadth of a trial courts discretion in granting a mistrial
C: holding that in order to show municipal liability for an officers actions under monell v dept of soc servs 436 us 658 694 98 sct 2018 56 led2d 611 1978 a plaintiff must demonstrate one of the following 1
D: holding that in order to prevail on a  1983 claim for unlawful arrest a plaintiff needed to satisfy the test enunciated in franks v delaware 438 us 154 171 98 sct 2674 57 led2d 667 1978 which requires a showing that the maker of the affidavit either stated a deliberate falsehood or acted with a reckless disregard for the truth proof of negligence or innocent mistake is insufficient a plaintiff must  demonstrate that the police officer acted with reckless disregard for the truth as well as prove that the officer made the statements in his affidavits with a high degree of awareness of their probable falsity
A.