9033(d) (emphasis added), “[w]ithin 10 days of being served with a copy of the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law,” Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9033(b). The district court’s April 6, 2007, order resolved Dorsey’s objections, affirming in part and reversing in part the bankruptcy court’s report and recommendations. As relevant here, the district court determined that Bremer’s direct attorney-client relationship with Dorsey was established after the closing of the “St. Regis II” loan, rather than at the time of Dorsey’s retention as the bankruptcy court found. Because no party objected to the bankruptcy court’s recommendation that the Trustee’s indemnity and contribution claim be dismissed, the dismissal became final and effective. See In re Ragar, 3 F.3d 1174, 1177-78 (8th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>) (citing Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9033(d)); Hagan v.
holding that bankruptcy court possessed jurisdiction to enter money judgment in noncore proceeding against third party holding district court may treat bankruptcy courts findings and conclusions as proposed recognizing that where a bankruptcy court makes proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in a noncore proceeding its action would  become final and effective if a party did not file timely objections holding that bankruptcy court may issue proposed findings and conclusions in a core proceeding over which the bankruptcy court does not have constitutional authority holding that in a noncore proceeding a bankruptcy court may enter final orders with the consent of all the parties to the proceeding