With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 2406. Thus, the problem with the order of the district court before us boils down to a matter of standard of review. Had the district court applied de novo review to the magistrate judge’s order, we would have no need to remand the case. See United States v. Weissberger, 951 F.2d 392, 398 (D.C.Cir.1991) (finding that the magistrate judge exceeded her authority but that any defect was cured by the district court’s de novo review of the original order). However, in its analysis, the district court repeatedly underscored its deferential stance with regard to the magistrate judge’s order. There is simply no way to read the district court’s analysis as a product of its independent judgment. Therefore, we must vacate the district court’s order and remand. See Ocelot Oil, 847 F.2d at 1464 (<HOLDING>). In light of the accelerated nature of this

A: holding that review of a partial and truncated record by the district court was error and case remanded for review on the entire administrative record
B: holding that although the district court had reviewed the record thoroughly it had done so constrained by the assumption that the magistrates order must be affirmed absent clear error and therefore remanding for the court to review the record in light of its own independent judgment
C: holding that the district courts review of a partial and truncated record was error and remanding the case for review on the entire administrative record
D: holding that a grant of summary judgment may be affirmed on any independent ground revealed by the record
B.