believes that procedure was correct. When a dispositive motion includes alternative relief in non-disposi-tive terms, the matter must be treated as a dispositive motion by a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). See Rejects Skate Magazine, Inc. v. Acutrack, Inc., 2006 WL 889501 (M.D.Tenn. Mar. 29, 2006) (stating that “the Report and Recommendation (‘R & R’) recommended the denial in its entirety of the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Strike Certain Claims, and Transfer Venue.... Because this is a dispositive motion, the court must make a de novo determination of any portion of the recommended disposition to which an objection has been made”); see also Sutton v. U.S. Small Business Administration, 92 Fed.Appx. 112, 119-20 (6th Cir.2003) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>); Baker v. Peterson, 67 Fed.Appx. 308, 311 (6th
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 confrontation clause claims are reviewed de novo holding that a magistrate judges ruling on dispositive motions such as those for the suppression of evidence must be reviewed de novo by the district court holding that a legal conclusion on a motion to suppress is reviewed de novo holding that a district court could properly designate the magistrate to make a nonbinding recommendation on nondispositive motions under section 636b3 but such matters are reviewed de novo