Plaintiffs appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment against their claims under section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), Pub. L. No. 96-510, 94 Stat. 2767. Plaintiffs also appealed the district court's denial of their Rule 59(e) motion to clarify or amend the summary judgment order. At issue was whether parties subject to a consent decree could file claims for cost recovery under section 107(a) or whether their remedies were limited to filing claims for contribution under section 113(f) of CERCLA. The court agreed with its sister circuits that it must deny the availability of section 107(a) remedy under these circumstances in order "[t]o ensure the continued vitality of the precise and limited right to contribution." The court also held that the Magistrate Judge did not abuse his discretion by denying plaintiff's Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the summary judgment order.