With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". conduct a de novo review of the portions of the report to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also Haines v. Liggett Group, Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 91 (3d Cir. 1992). III. ANALYSIS Section 636 does not expressly authorize a Magistrate Judge to determine post-judgment matters. The plain language of section 636(b)(1)(A) only authorizes a Magistrate Judge to hear and determine nondispositive pretrial matters, subject to review by the district court for clear or legal error. Thus, a magistrate’s determination of a post-judgment appealable matter that forecloses a defense or disposes of a claim exceeds his authority under the statute. See, e.g., Colo. Bldg. Constr. Trades Council v. B.B. Andersen Constr. Co., Inc., 879 F.2d 809, 811 (10th Cir. 1989) (<HOLDING>). This is particularly true where the

A: holding that a rehearing order was not final or appealable
B: holding that without designation by the district court and consent of the parties under section 636c the magistrate judge was not authorized to enter a final appealable postjudgment order
C: holding that only a district judge in the charging district and not a magistrate judge in that district may review the release order of a magistrate judge in the arresting district
D: holding that when the trial court signed an order dismissing the plaintiffs complaint but refused to enter a final judgment on that order the order refusing to enter judgment was appealable under former ors 190102a
B.