David Putzer v. James Donnelly;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
MVD/Inventory
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID PUTZER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAMES DONNELLY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-17335
D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00620-LRH-
VPC
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
David Putzer, a Nevada state inmate, appeals pro se the district court’s
denial of his request for preliminary injunctive relief against appellee prison
FILED
MAR 18 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 MVD/Inventory 09-17335
officials. Putzer seeks permission to attend a religious candle-lighting ceremony
held at the prison. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we
affirm.
We express no view on the merits of the underlying 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, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008)
(listing factors for district court to consider); Sports Form, 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.

-- 2 of 2 --