Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
is different in that Mark acknowledges having received some notice, but not forty-five days’ notice as required by Rule 245. He contends that we should reverse the trial court on that basis alone. It is true that courts view Rule 245 as a mandatory requirement. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Abbott, 863 S.W.2d 139, 140 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1993, writ denied); see also Platt, 991 S.W.2d at 484; In re Estate of Crenshaw, 982 S.W.2d 568, 570 (Tex.App.Amarillo 1998, no pet.); Hardin v. Hardin, 932 S.W.2d 566, 567 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1995, no writ). That a rule is mandatory, however, does not necessarily mean that a party cannot waive the rights granted under that rule. See, e.g., Pena v. Pena, 986 S.W.2d 696, 701 (Tex.App.Corpus Christi 1998), pet. denied per curiam, 8 S.W.3d 639 (Tex.1999) . Error resulting from a trial court’s failure
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a party who fails to comply with the mandatory requirements for requesting a judges recusal waives his right to complain of the judges failure to recuse himself
B. recognizing that section 455 requires judges to consider recusal sua sponte 
C. holding that under the firm waiver rule a party who fails to make a timely objection to the magistrate judges findings and recommendations waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions
D. holding failure to timely object to magistrate judges recommendation waives appellate review of factual and legal questions
E. holding that an order granted simultaneously with a recusal order is void unless the trial judges written order  was but a reduction of an earlier adverse oral ruling made prior to the recusal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.