With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the Court is required to presume that all the factual allegations concerning the Defendants' purported deliberate indifference as to Candelaria's medical needs are true. Indeed, the Moving Defendants have proffered no facts overlooked by this Court nor have they provided medical records or affidavits concerning the medical care received by Candelaria during his tenure at Green Haven supporting their claim for supervisory immunity, accordingly, this Court need not, and indeed cannot, delve into the question of the prison officials’ subjective "intent” as required by contemporary Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. See Farmer v. Brennan, -U.S. -, -, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1978-1979, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994); see also Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 299, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 2324-25, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991) (<HOLDING>). It is also persuasive to note that Candelaria

A: holding prison officials ultimately violated the plaintiffs right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment
B: holding a subjective inquiry into a prison officials state of mind is mandated when it is claimed that the official has inflicted cruel and unusual punishment
C: holding life in prison without the possibility of parole was not cruel and unusual punishment for juvenile convicted of murder
D: holding cruel and unusual punishment complaint not preserved
B.