With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of limitations and granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. See Bi-beau, 980 F.Supp. at 358. II Bibeau claims he was the victim of a conspiracy to fraudulently induce him to participate in the experiments, and that he was lied to about the possible side effects of the radiation and about the nature and purpose of the experiments. He also brings related state-law claims for fraud, battery, breach of fiduciary duty, strict liability for ultrahazardous activity and intentional infliction of emotional distress. These claims have their roots in the events of over three decades ago, and the parties agree that the statute of limitations applicable to both the federal and the state claims is two years. See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985) (<HOLDING>); Or.Rev.Stat. § 12.110 (1997). The question

A: holding that the statute of limitations for  1983 claims is the most closely analogous state limitations period for general personal injury claims
B: holding that the appropriate state statute of limitations to borrow for section 1983 actions is that for recovery of damages for personal injuries
C: 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
D: holding that even though constitutional claims alleged under  1983 encompass numerous and diverse topics and subtopics the state statute of limitations governing tort actions for the recovery of damages for personal injuries provides the appropriate limitation period
B.