appeal. Accordingly, we decline to find that the defendants have waived their right to challenge the magistrate’s order. We have general jurisdiction to review final judgments of district courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. In reviewing a final judgment, we have jurisdiction to review interlocutory rulings that may have affected the outcome of the proceedings in the district court. Sackett v. Beaman, 399 F.2d 884, 889 n. 6 (9th Cir.1968). While the magistrate’s ruling was not a ruling by the district judge, it nevertheless affected the outcome of the trial and is therefore reviewable on appeal. See Merritt v. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, 649 F.2d 1013, 1019 (5th Cir.1981); see also Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School District, 708 F.2d 452, 454-55 (9th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). But see United States v. Renfro, 620 F.2d
holding that objections are required when challenging findings actually set out in a magistrates recommendation as well as the magistrates failure to make additional findings holding that errors of law in a magistrates findings and recommendations pursuant to section 636b1b can be challenged on appeal even in the absence of the filing of objections in the district court holding that objections are required to challenge magistrate judges findings as well as magistrates failure to make additional findings holding that objections are required when challenging findings actually set out in magistrates recommendation as well as magistrates failure to make additional findings holding that the district court had jurisdiction to order restitution of award overturned on appeal even in the absence of a remand from the appellate court