MEMORANDUM **
Ameer Alghusain appeals pro se from the district courts order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of injuries Alghusain sustained in Ohio. 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 by denying Alghusains motion for a preliminary injunction because Alghusain failed to establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. See id. (plaintiff seeking preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, the balance of equities tips in his favor, and an injunction is in the public interest).
We reject as without merit Alghusains contentions that the district court was required to grant his motion because it was unopposed and that the district court should have granted Alghusain an opportunity to file an amended motion.
AFFIRMED.