With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Roy Dean Grace appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens action alleging that Las Vegas police officers and Federal Bureau of Investigation agents used excessive force in attempting to arrest him. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal based on a statute of limitations. Matthews v. Macanas, 990 F.2d 467, 468 (9th Cir.1993) (per curiam). We affirm. Because Grace failed to file his complaint within Nevada’s two-year statute of limitations, the district court properly dismissed his action as time-barred. See Perez v. Seevers, 869 F.2d 425, 426 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); see also Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 410 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Grace’s contention on appeal that the statute

A: holding that in actions brought under 42 usc  1983 federal courts apply the states statute of limitation for personal injury
B: holding such statutes are not analogous statutes of limitation for erisa purposes
C: holding that statutes of limitation for bivens and  1983 actions are the same
D: holding that if state law provides multiple statutes of limitations for personal injury actions the general or residual statute for personal injury actions should be used for 1983 actions
C.