With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that “persons acting under color of state law conspired to deprive him of a federally protected right.” Ridgewood Bd. of Educ. v. N.E. ex rel. M.E., 172 F.3d 238, 254 (3d Cir.1999). Private actors, such as the nongovernmental Defendants named here, can be viewed as acting “under color of state law” only if their conduct is fairly attributable to the state. See Rendell-Baher v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 838, 102 S.Ct. 2764, 73 L.Ed.2d 418 (1982). However, a § 1983 conspiracy claim only arises when there has been an actual deprivation of a federal right. Perano v. Township of Tilden, 423 Fed.Appx. 234, 239 (3d Cir.2011) (citing Andree v. Ashland County, 818 F.2d 1306, 1311 (7th Cir.1987) and Dixon v. City of Lawton, 898 F.2d 1443, 1449 (10th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>)). See also Hurst v. State Farm Mutual Auto.

A: holding that a defendants personal involvement in an alleged deprivation of constitutional rights is a necessary element of a  1983 complaint
B: recognizing that deprivation of a right was a necessary predicate to  1983 conspiracy liability
C: holding motion for attorneys fees was necessary predicate
D: holding that liability under  1983 requires a causal link to and direct responsibility for the deprivation of rights
B.