
    John DOE; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. CLARK COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 06-15120.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 13, 2006.
    
    Decided April 18, 2006.
    Marianne Lanuti, Esq., Henderson, NV, Niels L. Pearson, Esq., Selman Brietman LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Bill Hoffman, Esq., Clark County School District Legal Department, Mark E. Ferrario, Esq., Kummer Kaempfer Bonner Rensha & Ferrario, Las Vegas, NV, Ed Irvin, Esq., AGNV—Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: SILVERMAN, MCKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

This preliminary injunction appeal comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.

We subject a district court’s order regarding preliminary injunctive relief to limited review. Walczak v. EPL Prolong, Inc., 198 F.3d 725, 730 (9th Cir.1999). Our review of an order regarding a preliminary injunction “is much more limited than review of an order involving a permanent injunction, where all conclusions of law are freely renewable.” Id. A decision regarding a preliminary injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion, which occurs only if the district court based its decision on either an erroneous legal standard or clearly erroneous factual findings. Id.

The district court did not abuse its discretion here. See Martin v. Int’l Olympic Comm., 740 F.2d 670, 674-75 (9th Cir. 1984). We therefore affirm the district court’s order denying plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     