Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

The Appellants appeal the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and entering an order of default judgment in their favor. The Appellants claim that the damage award is too small and the injunction and destruction orders are too vague. Because the district court applied an incorrect standard of review, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.

Because the magistrate judge was operating without the parties' consent on the resolution of a dispositive matter, the district court was bound to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection was made. 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1) (West 2006 & Supp. 2011); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Here, the Appellants filed specific objections to the magistrate judge's report and sought a hearing to submit further evidence in support of a higher damage award. The district court overruled the objections and denied a hearing without explanation, stating that "[b]ased on a de novo review of the evidence in this case and consideration of the objections filed, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendations are neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law." Taking the district court's statement at face value, it reviewed the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations for clear error—not under the appropriate de novo standard. We are further concerned by the district court's conclusory denial of the Appellants' request for an evidentiary hearing. While a district court possesses broad discretion to deny an evidentiary hearing in its evaluation of a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, the decision cannot be arbitrary or capricious. Here, because the basis for the district court's rejection of the request for a hearing is not apparent from the record, we find ourselves unable to effectively review the court's decision. On remand, then, the district court should either grant the hearing or set forth its rationale for denial.

Accordingly, we vacate the district court's order and remand.* We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED.