22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4a5,MEMORANDUM Plaintiff Jehan Mir appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his request for preliminary injunctive relief and from the denial of his motion for reconsideration. 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, 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). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Mir’s motion for reconsideration because Mir failed to establish grounds for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth the standard of review and grounds for reconsideration). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4d7,

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Jehan Mir appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his request for preliminary injunctive relief and from the denial of his motion for reconsideration. 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, 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).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Mir’s motion for reconsideration because Mir failed to establish grounds for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth the standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.