(“It is within the district court’s broad discretion whether to sever a claim under Rule 21.”); Hebel, 543 F.2d at 17. The district court did not abuse its discretion in severing the plaintiffs’ claims under Rule 21 rather than under Rule 42(b). We have held previously that a district court may sever claims under Rule 21, creating two separate proceedings, so long as the two claims are “discrete and separate.” Rice, 209 F.3d at 1016. In other words, one claim must be capable of resolution despite the outcome of the other claim. Id. By contrast, bifurcation under Rule 42(b) is appropriate where claims are factually interlinked, such that a separate trial may be appropriate, but final resolution of one claim affects the resolution of the other. See, e.g., Reinholdson, 346 F.3d at 850 (<HOLDING>). In Rice v. Sunrise Express, 209 F.3d at 1016,
holding that due process requires exclusionary rule to be applied in state trials holding that the rule 21 severance rendered the district court verdict a final and appealable judgment under 28 usc  1291 holding that because the trials of the individual claims may expose issues of systemic violation that would cause the district court to reconsider its decision to dismiss plaintiffs claims against the state defendants in their entirety severance under rule 21 was inappropriate instead construing the district courts order as an order for separate trials under rule 42b such that the individual claims may not be appealed until a final judgment has been rendered in the entire action holding the district court retained jurisdiction to reconsider its order granting the defendants motion to dismiss notwithstanding the fact that the district court had remanded the remaining pendent state claims to state court pursuant to 28 usc  1367c holding that because they are distinct and separate it had broad discretion  under rule 21 to sever the plaintiffs claims against riverboat from what remained of the plaintiffs claims against showboat