NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 29 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LANCE CONWAY WOOD, No. 20-35892

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00362-SB

v.

MEMORANDUM*

SUE WASHBURN, Superintendent of Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution ("EOCI"), in her individual and official capacities; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Stacie F. Beckerman, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted January 20, 2021***

Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Oregon state prisoner Lance Conway Wood appeals pro se from the district

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his action in his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and due process violations. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion.

Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 2014).

We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wood’s motion for

a preliminary injunction because Wood failed to establish that he was likely to

suffer irreparable harm. See Boardman v. Pac. Seafood Grp., 822 F.3d 1011, 1022

(9th Cir. 2016) (explaining that “[s]peculative injury does not constitute irreparable

injury sufficient [to obtain a preliminary injunction]”).

We reject as without merit Wood’s contention that the district court was

required to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding Wood’s motion for a preliminary

injunction.

AFFIRMED.

2 20-35892