Teacher:In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? Solve this instance: objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Submitted this 1st day of April, 2011. 1 . When parties fail to file timely objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the Federal Magistrates Act does not require a district court to review the report before accepting it. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 ) (<HOLDING>); Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F.Supp.2d 397, 399
Holding statements: (A) holding the appellate standard of review in fourth amendment search and seizure cases is limited to determining whether any evidence supports the trial courts finding and the appellate court may only reverse where there is clear error (B) holding that in its review of the irs exercise of discretion the court is limited to a review of the administrative record (C) holding that the role of the courts is limited to ascertaining whether there exists one of the specific grounds for the vacation of an award as provided in 10 of the arbitration act and that the court should not review the arbitration proceeding for errors of law or fact (D) holding without a transcript of proceedings below review on appeal is limited to errors of law that are apparent on face of record (E) holding that the courts review is limited to ascertaining whether there is clear error on the face of the record
Student:
holding the appellate standard of review in fourth amendment search and seizure cases is limited to determining whether any evidence supports the trial courts finding and the appellate court may only reverse where there is clear error