With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". “final decision”); accord Culbertson v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 934, 937 n. 3 (8th Cir.1994); Duda v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 834 F.2d 554, 555 (6th Cir.1987); see also Harper v. Bowen, 854 F.2d 678, 680 (4th Cir.1988) (remand orders in social security cases are generally not final, appealable orders). Thus, because Iwachiw’s appeal was not from a final decision of the Commissioner, the district court correctly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear his suit. See Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 764, 95 S.Ct. 2457, 45 L.Ed.2d 522 (1975). 2. Injunctive Relief and Other Claims The court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction also precluded it from granting Iwachiw’s motion for interim injunctive relief. See DiLaura v. Power Auth. of State of N.Y., 982 F.2d 73 (2d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); see also Fitzgerald v. Apfel, 148 F.3d 232,

A: holding that a complaint that sought injunctive relief as well as such further relief as the court deems just did not present a factual allegation supporting a claim for damages
B: holding that a court may award injunctive relief against a state officer
C: holding that lack of subject matter jurisdiction precluded court from awarding injunctive relief as well as damages
D: holding that district court appropriately dismissed suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the case was moot
C.