With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 874 (last visited May 9.2008). The vast number of jobs falling within the category of inspector, all with differing job requirements, makes it quite difficult to tell whether someone with Pires’ level of impairment might be able to perform an inspector job. Therefore, the lack of any specifics as to what this job might entail renders this aspect of the VE’s testimony insufficient to satisfy the Commissioner’s burden of proving the existence of jobs in the national economy that may be performed by someone with the claimant’s residual functional capacity. See Seavey v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir.2001) (stating that burden lies on Commissioner to come forward with evidence of jobs that claimant can perform); cf. Perez v. Chater, 17 F.Supp.2d 1115, 1127 & n. 33 (C.D.Cal.1997) (<HOLDING>). V. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons,

A: holding that ves testimony did not satisfy that burden due to his failure to identify any specific inspector job among hundreds of possibilities consistent with aljs findings as to plaintiffs capacity
B: holding that objections are required to challenge magistrate judges findings as well as magistrates failure to make additional findings
C: holding that despite a trial courts failure to make specific factual findings an appellate court is free to affirm on any grounds for which there is sufficient record to permit conclusions of law
D: holding that removal of job responsibility did not constitute an adverse employment action because there was no change in the plaintiffs job position grade pay or benefits
A.