Transfer of racketeering lawsuits

1. Whether the court of appeals satisfied its supervisory mandamus obligation when it denied relief by (a) citing 28 U.S.C. § 626 — the Federal Judicial Center Director’s compensation statute — instead of 28 U.S.C. § 636, the magistrate judge authority statute; (b) quoting the governing five-factor standard of Bauman v. U.S. District Court as restated in In re Mersho and applying no factor of it; and (c) foreclosing further filings before any petition for rehearing could be filed. 2. Whether Article Ill’s requirement of de novo district judge review of a magistrate judge’s dispositive ruling is satisfied when (a) the magistrate judge entered a case-transfer order without the consent 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) requires for any dispositive act; (b) the case file was physically transmitted to the transferee district three business days after the order, inside the fourteen-day objection period of Rule 72; and (c) the transferor district judge ruled on the objections only after the case had been docketed in the transferee district, rendering his review a post-divestiture act. 3. Whether a district court may enter a transfer order under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) — a statute conditioned on venue being “wrong” — without addressing 18 U.S.C. § 1965, the RICO venue provision falling within the statutory range the court’s own order to show cause explicitly cited, when § 1965 independently established venue in the transferor district and the order to show cause had noticed transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a different statute with a different standard.