Case Name: Peter T. HARRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-04
Citations: 381 F. App'x 731
Docket Number: No. 09-35992
Parties: Peter T. HARRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 381
Pages: 731–731

Head Matter:
Peter T. HARRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-35992.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 4, 2010.
Peter T. Harrell, Ashland, OR, pro se.
Denise Gale Fjordbeck, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Oregon Attorney General, Judy C. Lucas, Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS and W. FLETCHER, 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-appellant Peter T. Harrell appeals pro se the district court's denial of his request for preliminary injunctive relief against defendants-appellees in connection with appellant's complaint for civil rights violations, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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. The Lands Council v. McNair, 537 F.3d 981, 986 (9th Cir.2008); see Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, — U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) (listing factors for district court to consider); Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Intern. Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 752-53 (9th Cir.1982) (explaining limited scope of review). We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order denying the preliminary injunction.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.