With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". while we have held that “temporary swelling and irritation” constitute only de minimis injury under Norman, see Taylor v. McDuffie, 155 F.3d 479, 484 (4th Cir.1998), overruled in part by Wilkins, 559 U.S. 34, 130 S.Ct. 1175 (2010), we have also recognized that to satisfy Norman an inmate “néed not show that ... force caused an ‘extreme deprivation’ or ‘serious’ or ‘significant’ pain or injury.” Williams v. Benjamin, 77 F.3d 756, 761 (4th Cir.1996) (quoting Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992)). Moreover, on numerous occasions, applying the Norman standard, we have concluded that injuries comparable to — and arguably less severe than — those Ussery maintains he suffered were not de minimis. See, e.g., Orem v. Rephann, 523 F.3d 442, 448 (4th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Young v. Prince George’s Cnty., 355 F.3d 751,

A: holding plaintiff failed to meet de minimis burden where he introduced only two isolated comments made by individuals who had no involvement in his termination
B: holding that just two uses of a taser  even if only for a few seconds at a time  caused more than de minimis injury when the plaintiff experieneed electric shock pain and developed a scar
C: holding that the prison litigation reform act requires a prior showing of physical injury that need not be significant but must be more than de minimis 
D: holding that to demonstrate retaliation complainedof action must be more than de minimis
B.