With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". with regard to Plaintiffs First Amendment claims against Defendants in their personal capacity as well as Defendants’ claim for qualified immunity. Defendants filed objections. I. STANDARD OF REVIEW After being served with a Report and Recommendation issued by a Magistrate Judge, a party has ten days to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Crv. P. 72(b); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir.2005). A district court judge reviews de novo the portions of the R & R to which objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a de novo review under the statute. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir.1986) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). The United States Supreme Court has held that

A: holding that sentencing upon general remand is to be de novo requiring the district court to consider new objections to the presentence report
B: recognizing that the application of statutory criteria to facts as found by the district court is subject to de novo review
C: holding in the criminal context that a district courts obligation to make a de novo determination with respect to the portions of a magistrate judges report and recommendation to which objections are made did not require a de novo hearing
D: holding the district court need not provide de novo review where the objections are frivolous conclusive or too general because the burden is on the parties to pinpoint those portions of the magistrates report that the district court must specifically consider
D.