Peter T. Harrell v. Southern Oregon University;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PETER T. HARRELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-35992
D.C. No. 1:08-cv-03037-CL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Owen M. Panner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: CANBY, THOMAS and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-appellant Peter T. Harrell appeals pro se the district court's denial
of his request for preliminary injunctive relief against defendants-appellees in
FILED
JUN 04 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

connection with appellant's complaint for civil rights violations, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. 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); 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 --