(PS) Roberts v. Sacramento Housing & Redevelopment Agency ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 SYDNEY BROOKE ROBERTS, et al., No. 2:22-cv-01699-DJC-AC 10 Plaintiffs, 11 v. ORDER 12 SACRAMENTO HOUSING & REDVELOPMENT AGENCY, 13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff has filed “Objections” to the Court’s August 14, 2024 Order adopting 16 the Magistrate Judge’s Finding and Recommendations, terminating minor Plaintiffs 17 AIMS and TAYS and dismissing Defendant Tyler Thao without prejudice for failure of 18 service. Objections to court orders are not permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil 19 Procedure but the Court construes Plaintiff’s filing as a Motion for Reconsideration of 20 the Court’s Order.1 Plaintiff has not shown any grounds for reconsideration of this 21 Court's Order dismissing the action without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). 22 //// 23 //// 24 //// 25 //// 26 1 Plaintiff has subsequently also filed a notice of appeal regarding that order. A notice of appeal does 27 not divest the district court of jurisdiction if, at the time it was filed, “there was a pending motion for reconsideration.” United Nat'l Ins. Co. v. R&D Latex Corp., 242 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing 28 Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i)). 1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objection to Order Dated August 14, 2 | 2024 (ECF No. 65) is DENIED. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for 3 | all further pretrial proceedings. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 | Dated: _ September 29, 2024 “Daal J CoO □□□□ Hon. Daniel alabretta / 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