Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir.1995). “ ‘[Objections disputing] the correctness of the magistrate’s recommendation but failing] to specify the findings ... believed [to be] in error’ are too general.” Spencer, 449 F.3d at 725 (quoting Miller, 50 F.3d at 380). The defendant did not object to the magistrate judge’s conclusion that the plaintiff established the first two elements of his prima facie case. “[T]he failure to file specific objections to a magistrate’s report constitutes a waiver of those objections.” Cowherd v. Million, 380 F.3d 909, 912 (6th Cir.2004). Since the defendant did not challenge those conclusions, the Court need not address those items, since those arguments are waived, see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985) ; Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that under current eleventh circuit rule the failure to object limits the scope of our appellate review to plain error review of the magistrate judges factual findings  however failure to object to the magistrate judges legal conclusions does not preclude the party from challenging those conclusions on appeal
B. holding that the failure to object to the magistrate judges report releases the court from its duty to independently review the motion
C. holding that failure to object to magistrate judges recommendation waived issue on appeal
D. holding that failure to object in a timely fashion to a magistrate judges report and recommendation generally constitutes a waiver of the defaulting partys right to appeal provided that the parties received clear notice of the consequences of their failure to object
E. holding failure to timely object to magistrate judges recommendation waives appellate review of factual and legal questions
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.