Case ID: f-appx_552/html/0723-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jehan Zeb MIR, MD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-55855.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 13, 2014.
    
    Filed Jan. 17, 2014.
    Jehan Zeb Mir, MD, Redondo Beach, CA, pro se.
    
      Margaret Jaramilla Phe, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: TROTT, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Jehan Mir appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his request for preliminary injunctive relief and from the denial of his motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

We express no view on the merits of the complaint. Our sole inquiry is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunctive relief, and we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) (listing factors for district court to consider); Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int'l 686 F.2d 750, 752-53 (9th Cir.1982) (explaining limited scope of review).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Mir’s motion for reconsideration because Mir failed to establish grounds for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth the standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.