could refer the matter back to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings. See id. In accordance with the First Circuit’s ruling, this Court will fash ion a remedy, if any is appropriate, in light of the contempt powers of the bankruptcy court, as the First Circuit so directed. An analysis of the rulings of the other circuits is not necessary to resolve the message emanating from the First Circuit. See, e.g., Walls v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 276 F.3d 502, 507 (9th Cir.2002) (“Contempt is the appropriate remedy and no further remedy is necessary.”); Cox v. Zale Delaware, Inc., 239 F.3d 910, 917 (7th Cir.2001) (“[A] suit for violation of section 524(c) can be brought only as a contempt action under section 524(a)(2).”); Pertuso v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 233 F.3d 417, 425 (6th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). This case was remanded to this Court for
holding that section 105 does not afford a private cause of action for  506bbased issues holding fourth fifth and fourteenth amendment violations stemming from dea search cannot be remedied through ftca because state law cannot create liability for violation of federal constitutional rights holding that no private cause of action exists under  105 for  524 violations holding that violations of  524 cannot be remedied pursuant to  105 holding that no private cause of action exists under  105 for fed r bankrp 2016 violations