whether district courts have jurisdiction to review magistrate-issued remand orders and whether we have jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Because the issues presented involve questions of law, our review is de novo. See, e.g., Trepel v. Roadway Express, Inc., 194 F.3d 708, 712 (6th Cir.1999). a. Nondispositive v. Dispositive Motions As an initial matter, we must decide whether a remand motion is nondispositive and governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a), or dispositive and governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Whether a remand motion is nondispositive or dispositive is an issue of first instance in this court. In relevant part, 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) reads: (A)a judge may designate a magistrate to hear and determin 997 (6th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Thomas
holding that rule 11 sanctions are dispositive and thus subject to de novo review holding that a motion for rule 11 sanctions is dispositive holding that trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion for rule 11 sanctions without adequate explanation holding under third circuit law that denial of rule 11 sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that a motion for rule 37 sanctions is dispositive