With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ORDER Plaintiff-Appellant Thomas C. Zembiec appeals the district court’s decision granting Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and denying Zembiec’s motion to amend his complaint. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying factual allegations, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. Like the district court, for the purposes of our analysis, we assume the truth of the well-pleaded factual allegations in the proposed amended complaint. See Ideal Steel Supply Corp. v. Anza, 652 F.3d 310, 324 (2d Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). [1] “In order to establish a First Amendment

A: holding that even if the standard for waiver is clear the standard was not met
B: holding that the courts denial of either a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment and is not reviewable 
C: holding that the standard for a motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as the standard for a motion to dismiss
D: holding that a motion for a  705 stay should be judged by the same standard as a motion for a preliminary injunction
C.