## Facts

- Daniel Williams was injured in a drive-by shooting in Buffalo, New York; the shooter later pleaded guilty to attempted assault.
- Williams and his father sued several firearms-related entities in New York state court, alleging negligent sale or distribution of the handgun used in the shooting.
- Certain defendants removed the action to federal court on diversity grounds with consent from some, but not all, other named defendants.
- Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing removal was procedurally defective because unanimous consent of all properly joined and served defendants was not obtained.
- The district court referred non-dispositive matters to a magistrate judge.
- The magistrate judge granted remand by “Decision and Order,” treating the remand motion as non-dispositive.
- The district court overruled defendants’ objections, applied clear-error review, and affirmed the magistrate judge’s remand order.
- Defendants appealed, challenging the magistrate judge’s authority to issue the remand order and the district court’s review standard, not the substantive correctness of remand.

## Issues

1. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) barred appellate review when the appeal challenged the magistrate judge’s statutory authority and the district court’s standard of review rather than the merits of remand.
2. Whether a motion to remand is “dispositive” under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), requiring a report and recommendation and de novo review, or “non-dispositive,” allowing a magistrate judge to enter a remand order subject only to clear-error review.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit held § 1447(d) did not preclude review because the appeal raised a collateral question about statutory authority under § 636, not the substantive basis for remand.
- The court held a remand order is dispositive for purposes of § 636(b)(1) because it conclusively ends the case in federal court and determines the availability of a federal forum.
- The court ruled a magistrate judge lacks authority to issue a final remand order under § 636(b)(1)(A); the magistrate may only issue a report and recommendation.
- The court vacated the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings requiring de novo review by the district judge.
- The court did not decide whether remand was substantively proper under the removal statutes.

## Legal Principles

- Section 1447(d) bars appellate review of the merits of certain remand orders, but does not bar review of collateral issues concerning the issuing court’s statutory authority.
- Under § 636(b)(1), matters functionally equivalent to dismissal from federal court are dispositive and cannot be finally determined by a magistrate judge.
- A remand order is dispositive because it terminates federal-court proceedings and fixes the forum; therefore, it requires a report and recommendation and de novo review of timely objections by the district judge.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit vacated a remand entered through magistrate “decision and order,” holding that remand is a dispositive matter requiring a report and recommendation and de novo district-court review, and that § 1447(d) did not bar appellate review of this authority question.


Williams v. Beemiller, Inc., 527 F.3d 259 (2d Cir. 2008)