Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of exceptional circumstances ordinarily required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 53(b). See, e.g., White v. General Services Administration, 652 F.2d 913, 915-16 (9th Cir.1981). Morse argues that § 706(f)(5) should not be construed to authorize reference to a magistrate when neither side wants the reference. The court disagrees. The statute calls for the judge “to assign the case for hearing at the earliest practicable date and to cause the case to be in every way expedited.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(5). If the case cannot be scheduled for trial within 120 days after issue has been joined, the judge has the discretion to appoint a master. Id. Nothing in Title VII conditions this authority on the consent of the parties. See, e.g., Brown v. Wesley’s Quaker Maid, Inc., 771 F.2d 952, 954-55 (6th Cir.1985) , cert. denied, — U.S.-, 107 S.Ct. 116, 93
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that pretext is subject to the clearly erroneous standard
B. holding that a finding of accommodation is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard of review instead of under a de novo standard
C. recognizing that mixed questions of fact and law that are essentially factual in nature should be reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard as opposed to the generally administered de novo standard
D. holding that magistrates findings following a nonconsensual reference of a title vii ease are reviewed on a clearly erroneous standard
E. holding that findings of fact are reviewed for clear error
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.