Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Judge Miller conducted a thorough review of all objections and responses made by Pinkston to the magistrate judge's recommendation. See Goffman, 59 F.3d at 671 (stating that "if following a review of the record the district court is satisfied with the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations it may in its discretion treat those findings and recommendations as its own"); see also United States v. Larson, 760 F.2d 852, 857 (8th Cir.1985); Andrews v. Deland, 943 F.2d 1162, 1170-71 (10th Cir.1991). It is clear that Pinkston’s argument in this regard is nothing more than a collateral attack on the magistrate’s reasoning, masquerading as an assault on the district court’s entirely acceptable decision to adopt the magistrate’s opinion instead of conducting an evidentiary Cir.1994) . To do otherwise would be contrary to our very
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that by blindly adopting the magistrate judges findings apparently without ever having received a report and recommendation the district court violated  636b1
B. holding that failure to object to magistrate judges recommendation waived issue on appeal
C. holding that district courts adoption of the magistrate judges report and recommendation one day after issuance did not constitute reversible error where district court conducted a meaningful review of the report and recommendation
D. holding that magistrate judge could without consent of parties hold a pretrial hearing and issue a report and recommendation based on the findings made
E. holding that by adopting the presentence report the district court made the requisite finding under the guidelines
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.