court at this time.” Id. That amounted to a withdrawal of the matter from the bankruptcy court. 5 . The Magistrate's Act provides that a district judge may either “designate a magistrate to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before" that judge or "designate a magistrate to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to [the] judge of the court proposed findings of facts and recommendations,” depending upon the particular matter pending before the district judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Title 28, § 157, in contrast, pertains only to matters arising under the Bankruptcy Code, or arising in or related to cases under the Bankruptcy Code. The Magistrate's Act is not so limited. See Rosario v. Livaditis (In re Livaditis), 150 B.R. 224 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1993) (<HOLDING>). 6 . While at first blush it may appear that
holding that the district court cannot refer a matter to a bankruptcy judge under the magistrates act holding that a proceeding that by its nature could arise only in the context of a bankruptcy case is a core matter subject to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court 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 holding the broad jurisdictional grant given the bankruptcy courts under the 1978 bankruptcy act unconstitutional holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction and remanding the matter to state court