Case Name: Robert ROSEBROCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald MATHIS, Chief of Police of The Veterans Administration Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, in his official capacity and Donna Beiter, Director of The Veterans Administration Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, in her official capacity, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-22
Citations: 400 F. App'x 261
Docket Number: No. 10-56132
Parties: Robert ROSEBROCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald MATHIS, Chief of Police of The Veterans Administration Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, in his official capacity and Donna Beiter, Director of The Veterans Administration Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, in her official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 400
Pages: 261–261

Head Matter:
Robert ROSEBROCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald MATHIS, Chief of Police of The Veterans Administration Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, in his official capacity and Donna Beiter, Director of The Veterans Administration Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, in her official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-56132.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Filed Oct. 22, 2010.
Silvia Araxie Babikian, Esquire, Peter Jay Eliasberg, Mark D. Rosenbaum, ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Andre Birotte, Jr., Esquire, Indira Joy Cameron-Banks, Leon Warren Weidman, I, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Robert Rosebrock appeals the district court's denial of his request for preliminary injunctive relief against Veterans Administration officials in his action alleging viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment. 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, 555 U.S. 7, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) (listing factors for district court to consider); Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int'l, 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.