With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Ventura v. City of Independence, No. 95-3582, 1997 WL 94688, at *1 n. 2 (6th Cir.1997) (unpublished opinion). Bartell alleges that Defendants terminated her parental rights on the basis of their assessment of her intellectual disabilities, and appears to contend that Defendants did not reasonably accommodate her disability insofar as she was “deliberately denied [both] the services of a full and fair psychological evaluation” and the benefit of in-home services to assist her in raising William. Bartell’s Br. at 33-34. Bartell, however, has not alleged a genuine issue of material fact that she was denied custody of William because of her disability, or denied any accommodations because of her disability. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. City of New York, 197 F.3d 611, 618 (2d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Both Defendants and the Probate Court relied

A: holding that because the plaintiff was not disabled for the purposes of the ada this court need not to address the other elements of the prima facie case
B: holding that an entity that serves the disabled lacks standing under the ada
C: holding that no ada violation was shown because the disabled were not denied benefits that were otherwise available
D: holding alien not denied judicial review because habeas was available
C.