Case Name: Jose E. HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INDYMAC BANK; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-07-09
Citations: 532 F. App'x 763
Docket Number: No. 12-17669
Parties: Jose E. HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INDYMAC BANK; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 532
Pages: 763–764

Head Matter:
Jose E. HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INDYMAC BANK; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-17669.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 8, 2013.
Filed July 9, 2013.
Jose E. Hernandez, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
Christine Parvan, Ariel Edward Stern, Esquire, Akerman Senterfitt LLP, Christopher M. Hunter, Kristin Schuler-Hintz, McCarthy & Holthus, LLP, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, CANBY and TALLMAN, 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
Plaintiff Jose Hernandez appeals pro se the district court's denial of his request for preliminary injunctive relief against defendants. 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 Resources De fense Council, 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.