With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment, ECF No. 71, be GRANTED on all counts. The parties will have fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation within which to file written objections, if any, with the Honorable William J. Zloch, United States District Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (providing procedure for review of Magistrate Judge Report and Recommendation). Failure to timely file objections shall bar the parties from a de novo determination by Judge Zloch of any issue covered in the Report and shall bar the parties from challenging, on appeal, the factual findings accepted or adopted by this Court, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 145-53, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985) (<HOLDING>); see also Dupree v. Warden, 715 F.3d 1295,

A: holding failure to timely object to magistrate judges recommendation waives appellate review of factual and legal questions
B: holding that under the firm waiver rule a party who fails to make a timely objection to the magistrate judges findings and recommendations waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions
C: holding that party waives appellate review of magistrate judges factual findings that were not objected to within period prescribed by 28 usc  636b1 citing united states v walters 638 f2d 947 94950 6th cir1981
D: holding that the district courts adoption of the magistrate judges particular reasonablehour estimates for attorneys fees is consistent with the de novo determination that 28 usc  636b1 and united states v raddatz require
C.