ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

S. JAMES OTERO, District Judge.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, all of the records and files herein, and the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation issued on August 3, 2018 (the "Report"). The Court has further engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Petitioner has objected.

The Court acknowledges that Petitioner has appealed the Report. "The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal." Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, 103 S.Ct. 400, 74 L.Ed.2d 225 (1982) (per curiam). However, a notice of appeal from a nonappealable order will not divest the district court of jurisdiction. Estate of Conners by Meredith v. O'Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 658 (9th Cir. 1993); see also Ruby v. Secretary of the Navy, 365 F.2d 385, 389 (9th Cir. 1966) (en banc). "When a Notice of Appeal is defective in that it refers to a non-appealable interlocutory order, it does not transfer jurisdiction to the appellate court, and so the ordinary rule that the district court cannot act until the mandate has issued on the appeal does not apply." Nascimento v. Dummer, 508 F.3d 905, 908 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Ruby, 365 F.2d at 388-89); see also Thomas v. Perez, No. 1:07-CV-1185 AWI DLB PC, 2009 WL 722588, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2009). Because Petitioner is attempting to appeal the Report, which is not a final appealable order of the Court, Petitioner's filing of a notice of appeal did not deprive the Court of jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition is denied, the Motion to Amend is denied, and Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice.