With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the objective veracity of [the employer’s] action.’ ” Id., citing Morgan v. Mass. General Hosp., 901 F.2d 186, 191 (1st Cir.1990). Because there is no direct or probative circumstantial evidence that any defendant retaliated against Costello for her filing a claim of sex discrimination against the MRC in 1977, I recommend that defendants’ motion for summary judgment regarding Count I of the Amended Complaint be. allowed. C. Civil Rights The MRC, indisputably a state agency, is the only remaining defendant named in Count II, which alleges a violation of Costello’s civil rights. As the MRC points out, states and their agencies are not “persons” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2308, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Costello’s only written response is that “the

A: holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc  1983
B: holding that a police department is not a person within the meaning of section 1983
C: holding state university is not a person under  1983
D: holding that a state is not a person within the meaning of  1983
D.