Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
which objection is made. [The district court] may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, to obtain this de novo review of a magistrate judge’s R & R, an objecting party “must point out the specific portions of the report and recommendation to which [he] object[s].” U.S. Flour Corp. v. Certified Bakery, Inc., No. 10-CV-2522 (JS), 2012 WL 728227, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2012). If a party “makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear error.” Pall Corp. v. Entegris, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 48, 51 (E.D.N.Y.2008); see also Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir.2002) . Portions of the R & R to which a party makes
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that error was preserved by running objection because of defendants immediate objection to states specific question in combination with trial courts comments showing that it understood nature of defendants objection
B. holding that plaintiffs objection to an r  r was not specific enough to constitute an adequate objection under  fedrcivp 72b
C. holding that parties waived any choice of law objection by not raising an objection
D. holding that an objection was adequate when the judge cut short the objection and the defendant was not afforded the opportunity to explain his objection fully
E. holding that a party fails to preserve an evidentiary issue for appeal not only by failing to make a specific objection but also by making the wrong specific objection
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.