The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
March 18, 2010.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00620-LRHVPC.
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 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.