
    Matthew Ryley CORZINE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Adam Paul LAXALT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-16605
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 26, 2017
    Matthew Ryley Corzine, Pro Se
    Kathleen Megan Brady, Esquire, Attorney, AGNV — Office of the Nevada Attorney General (Carson City), Carson City, NV, for Defendants-Appellees
    
      Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges,
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, ' See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Matthew Ryley Corzine appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the enforcement of residency requirements for sex offenders under Nevada law. 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 963, 958 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Corzine’s request for preliminary injunctive relief seeking to enjoin the enforcement of statutory residency requirements because Corzine failed to establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim alleging that the imposition of lifetime supervision conditions violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. See U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9, cl. 3; Jackson, 746 F.3d at 958 (plaintiff seeldng 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 lack jurisdiction to review the dismissal of Corzine’s claims because the district court’s order did not dispose of the action as to all claims between the parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Prellwitz v. Sisto, 657 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 2011) (appellate jurisdiction is limited to final orders disposing of all claims between parties).

Appellees’ motion to supplement the record (Docket Entry No. 8) is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     