With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the North Carolina Constitution. Hughes cannot bring a claim directly under the Fourteenth Amendment because it does not create a cause of action. Her claim under the Fourteenth Amendment merges into her § 1983 claim because § 1983 merely creates a statutory basis to receive a remedy for the deprivation of a constitutional right. See Zombro v. Baltimore City Police Dep’t, 868 F.2d 1364, 1366 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 850, 110 S.Ct. 147, 107 L.Ed.2d 106 (1989). Hughes cannot bring an action under § 1983 for violation of her Fourteenth Amendment rights because Hughes originally could have instituted a Title VII cause of action. See Great American Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Novotny, 442 U.S. 366, 372-78, 99 S.Ct. 2345, 2349-52, 60 L.Ed.2d 957 (1979) (<HOLDING>); see also Zombro, 868 F.2d at 1366-71

A: holding that a title vii violation could not be asserted by way of 42 usc  19853 the conspiracy counterpart to  1983
B: holding that plaintiffs claims under 42 usc  1981 are also governed by the special venue provision of title vii
C: holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc  1983
D: holding that person in 42 usc  1983 does not include states
A.