With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the validity of a lien asserted by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, also filed prior to Mr. Stern’s being named guardian of the estate, the caption identified the plaintiffs as “A. W. IRREVOCABLE SPECIAL NEEDS TRUST; A. W, a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, THOMAS M. STERN.” Given that, in this case, the caption and the prayer for relief both indicate that Mr. Stern has sued in his capacity as guardian of the estate and that when Mr. Stem has chosen to sue in his capacity as guardian ad litem, he has specifically indicated that fact in the caption, we hold that Mr. Stern has brought this action on his own behalf as guardian of Armani’s estate and not as a guardian ad litem. Cf. Mullis v. Sechrest, 347 N.C. 548, 554, 495 S.E.2d 721, 724-25 (1998) (<HOLDING>). Because Mr. Stern has not sued in his

A: holding that loss of earnings was sufficiently encompassed by general prayer for relief
B: holding that in determining capacity in which defendant was sued it is appropriate to consider course of proceedings and allegations in complaint including caption section identifying parties claim for relief and prayer for relief
C: holding prayer for general relief does not support award of attorneys fees
D: holding that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for relief under section 1983
B.