With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of federal subject matter jurisdiction pending before this forum” (filing 18 at CM/ECF p. 4 n. 1). This was error in my opinion. Although ECR has not specifically objected to Judge Zwart’s rejection of its argument that the forum selection clause is unenforceable under Nebraska’s Model Uniform Choice of Forum Act, I will ad dress the issue. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985) (district judge may review de novo any. issue in magistrate judge’s report and recommendation at any time). ' “A remand order based upon a contractual forum-selection clause is not a remand' based upon a procedural defect or lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.” Public School Retirement System of Missouri v. State Street Bank & Trust Co., 640 F.3d 821, 825 (8th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). Thus, to the. extent that Judge Zwart’s

A: holding that remand order based on forum selection clause is reviewable on appeal
B: holding order dismissing action without prejudice based on contractual forum selection clause is final and appealable because it terminates the litigation in the plaintiffs chosen forum
C: holding that a permissive forum selection clause containing a waiver of any claims of forum non conveniens amounts to a mandatory forum selection clause at least where the plaintiff chose the designated forum
D: holding review of remand order based on forum selection clause not barred by  1447d
A.