With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Mr. Price did file timely objections in the district court in both 07-1088 and 07-1141. In both matters, Mr. Price put the district court on notice of his dissatisfaction with the magistrate judge’s conclusions. To be sure, in 07-1088 Mr. Price captioned his pleading as a notice of appeal, but the district court was able to discern Mr. Price’s intention and solicitously treated Mr. Price’s pro se filing as the requisite objection. In 07-1141, Mr. Price clearly cited the applicable statute and rule for challenging magistrate judges’ reports in district court. Yet, while we conclude that Mr. Price did file timely objections sufficient to preserve appellate review, his objections, with one exception, fall so short of our requirement of specificity that we cannot 84, 1190 (10th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). The single error which Mr. Price did identify

A: holding an argument waived on appeal for failure to raise the issue in objection to the magistrates recommendation
B: holding argument waived for failure to raise it in opening brief
C: holding an argument to be waived for inadequate briefing and failure to raise the issue in the statement of points on appeal
D: holding a onesentence conclusory objection to an issue in the magistrates recommendation insufficient to preserve that issue for appeal
A.