Case Name: Robert BLUE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Howard SKOLNIK; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-03
Citations: 520 F. App'x 603
Docket Number: No. 12-17394
Parties: Robert BLUE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Howard SKOLNIK; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 520
Pages: 603–603

Head Matter:
Robert BLUE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Howard SKOLNIK; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-17394.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 28, 2013.
Filed June 3, 2013.
Robert Blue, Lovelock, NV, pro se.
Micheline Noel Nadeau Fairbank, Esquire, AGNV — Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, 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 Robert Blue 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 Resources Defense 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.