Case Name: Michael Lenoir SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. YATES, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-28
Citations: 559 F. App'x 625
Docket Number: No. 13-16947
Parties: Michael Lenoir SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. YATES, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, TASHIMA and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 559
Pages: 625–625

Head Matter:
Michael Lenoir SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. YATES, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-16947.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 19, 2014.
Filed Feb. 28, 2014.
Michael Lenoir Smith, Sacramento, CA, pro se.
Jessica C. Rivas, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: LEAVY, TASHIMA and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Michael Lenoir Smith appeals pro se the district court's denial of his request for preliminary injunctive relief against defendant prison officials. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.
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).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.