Williams v. Navarro

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LANCE WILLIAMS, Case No.: 18-CV-1581 TWR (KSC)

12 Plaintiff, INDICATIVE RULING 13 v. (ECF No. 175) 14 OFFICER NAVARRO, et al., 15 Defendant. 16 17

18 Presently before the Court are Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 175, “Obj.”) to 19 Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford’s Report and Recommendation re Defendants’ 20 Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 172, “R&R”) recommending that the Court grant 21 Defendant’s Motion. The Court adopted the Report and Recommendation on September 22 30, 2022, prior to receiving Plaintiff’s objections, and closed the case. (ECF No. 173.) 23 Plaintiff had timely mailed his objections to the Report and Recommendation, but they did 24 not reach the Court before the filing deadline. (See generally “Obj.”) Before the Court 25 had an opportunity to review and rule on Plaintiff’s objections, Plaintiff filed a notice of 26 appeal (ECF No. 176) divesting this Court of jurisdiction. See Stein v. Wood, 127 F.3d 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 |] 1187, 1189 (th Cir. 1997). If the Court had jurisdiction, it would consider and rule on 2 || Plaintiff's objections. See Mendia v. Garcia, 874 F.3d 1118, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2017). 3 4 Dated: October 20, 2022 —— (2 5 dd) D (oe 6 Honorable Todd W. Robinson 5 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28