With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Perez’s due process and First Amendment retaliation claims. 1 . In addition, the district court held that the defendants waived any right to qualified immunity by failing to invoke immunity timely. The defendants do not contest this finding on appeal. 2 . The parties do not dispute that Perez's employment contract with the UHA provided him with a valid property interest. 3 . Although he contends that he had no opportunity to request a name-clearing hearing, there is no requirement that the name-clearing hearing occur before termination. Rosenstein v. City of Dallas, 876 F.2d 392, 396 n. 8 (5th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, Perez had ample opportunity to

A: holding that no constitutional violation may occur if a procedurally proper nameclearing hearing is provided
B: holding that in an agreement of sale in which time was of the essence and tender of deeds and of purchase money were expressly waived waiver of time is of the essence of the agreement would not result from a failure to tender because the parties had agreed that neither tender of deed nor tender of purchase money was required to put the other in default
C: holding that an evidentiary hearing is not required prior to the termination of social security disability benefits
D: holding that the state is not required to tender a nameclearing hearing prior to disclosing the charges or discharging the employee
D.