defend his motion to stay district court proceedings and in the appeal it which if true to the order as otherwise final except for that one footnote no quite indicated that it was a recommendation only that would be taking objection for district judge for reporting recommendation which both parties every right to appeal that order rate to seek district court review and both being able to raise objections report recommendation and then requiring was it was their objection at the district court or it was or jackson before the original settlement to him or the lack of treatment of gang affiliations on or there was not necessarily these that i understand of course boston there was a the parties reached their settlement there is no claim in the complaint approval of the class action settlement some inmates submitted suggestions as to additional provisions that might included in the settlement agreement one of them were involved revising parole policies and another one involved  not withdraw from the draw away from the overall fairness and satisfactory nature and so taking the contrary position that the info simply informing the board and we believe that that change in position when they had already persuaded the district court to take action based on those representations by adopting so many agreement judicially it stops them from asserting the later in the session we raised that  judges by twenty u s c section sixty six dollars there are additional source as well no but that's my point is that if i mean i hadn't thought about this too you just raised it but if congress has adopted a statute which nature of what special designation was intended to be made and this court has indicated that the district courts can in columbia record products columbia record productions versus hot wax record case case over to a magistrate judge for initial decision we believe that's a distinction between the special designation and a referral in order for all is common procedure and we would acknowledge that it's generally a mandatory procedure but it's not a by water so can i ask if you're if you're right about that well what happens here what would be the next steps if you're right that there was no jurisdiction just goes back to the district court and then that everybody gets a do over on th and they said we think  but even assuming i'm sorry your own it just seems a bit beyond what the original complaint was when you're now seem to be arguing you know there's a procedural due process claim order that appears to be idle both parties consenting to it and being willing to express their consent on the record and the district having a local rule that does this special designation globally and then for the district  to indicate to clarify the original referral for several months after both parties usually appeal you're lying or so i don't believe would have a significant impact as those facts are unlikely to recur with any frequency recent to every paragraph in which for example the related issue is raised in the complaint and yes i just do allege that there was at one time an unwritten policy of denying parole to inmates who were housed in the shoe but they don't allege that violates