With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a “magical incantation ... to ‘raise’ this procedural defect in [his] Motion to Remand,” and to hold otherwise would be contrary to the requirement that courts strictly construe removal jurisdiction. (Doc. 15 at 3-4.) Lunsford is correct in noting that removal jurisdiction must be strictly construed. See Mulcahey v. Columbia Organic Chem. Co., Inc., 29 F.3d 148, 151 (4th Cir.1994). H is argument as to jurisdictional amount does not suffice to raise a section 1445(c) objection. Indeed, the Magistrate Judge plainly stated that he was recommending a disposition on a ground not raised by the parties. While Lunsford filed a motion to remand, his failure to invoke section 1445(c) waived his objection to the procedural defect. See, e.g., Foulke v. Dugan, 148 F.Supp.2d 552, 555 (E.D.Pa. 2001) (<HOLDING>); Denman, 131 F.3d at 548 (same); Holguin v.

A: holding that party waived an objection to choice of law
B: holding that objection to procedural defect was waived where plaintiffs failed to articulate it in removal
C: holding that speculation objection as to expert testimony was waived where a different ground for objection was offered below
D: holding objection to affidavit on ground it states legal conclusion relates to defect in substance
B.