Case Name: Gary Steven BOWMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-19
Citations: 334 F. App'x 850
Docket Number: No. 09-15977
Parties: Gary Steven BOWMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 334
Pages: 850–850

Head Matter:
Gary Steven BOWMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-15977.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 13, 2009.
Filed Oct. 19, 2009.
Gary Steven Bowman, Chico, CA, pro se.
Kelcie M. Gosling, Kenneth C. Mennem-eier, Jr., Mennemeier, Glassman & Stroud LLP, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gary Steven Bowman appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging the conditions of his parole. 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). 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.