solely within the discretion of the district court. Cf. Massey v. City of Ferndale, 7 F.3d 506, 510-511 (6th Cir. 1993) (concluding that motions for fees and costs “are not to be determined by a Magistrate Judge”) (emphasis in original). Furthermore, there is no indication that the parties consented to the authority of the Magistrate Judge, or that this matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge. Given these circumstances, the Court will vacate the Magistrate Judge’s order and review this matter de novo. See, e.g., Anthony v. Mazda Motor of Am., 49 V.I. 560, 566 (D.V.I. 2007) (vacating magistrate’s order and reviewing matter de novo where there was no consent to magistrate’s authority or referral from the court); accord Estate of Conners v. O’Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 659 (9th Cir. 1993) (<HOLDING>). The sole question before the Court is whether
holding that we review legal conclusions of the court of federal claims de novo holding that under current eleventh circuit rule the failure to object limits the scope of our appellate review to plain error review of the magistrate judges factual findings  however failure to object to the magistrate judges legal conclusions does not preclude the party from challenging those conclusions on appeal holding in the criminal context that a district courts obligation to make a de novo determination with respect to the portions of a magistrate judges report and recommendation to which objections are made did not require a de novo hearing holding that section 3145b contemplates de novo review by the district court of a magistrates order for bail pending trial holding that the error caused by the magistrate judges unauthorized postjudgment order was cured by the district courts later de novo review of the magistrates findings and conclusions