Case Name: Godson ERUCHALU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. BANK; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-29
Citations: 583 F. App'x 846
Docket Number: No. 14-15102
Parties: Godson ERUCHALU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. BANK; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 583
Pages: 846–846

Head Matter:
Godson ERUCHALU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. BANK; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-15102.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 22, 2014.
Filed July 29, 2014.
Godson Eruchalu, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
Dominica C. Anderson, Duane Morris LLP, San Francisco, CA, Ryan A. Loos-velt, Duane Morris LLP, Matthew. Kemp Schriever, Esquire, Gregory L. Wilde, Esquire, Tiffany & Bosco, P.A., Matthew Kemp Schriever, Esquire, Wilde & Associates, Las Vegas, NV, James W. Brody, Esquire, American Mortgage Law Group, P.C., Evans D. Prieston, Attorney at Law, Navato, CA, Wade Michael Hansard, Esquire, McCormick Barstow, LLP, Fresno, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, 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 Godson Eruchalu appeals pro se the district court's denial of his request for preliminary injunctive relief. 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 Res. Def. Council Inc., 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.