Case ID: f-appx_612/html/0859-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Vivek SHAH, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Charles E. SAMUELS, Jr., D.S.C.C. Administrator, sued in his official capacity; United States of America; Jose A. Santana, DSCC Administrator (originally named as Doe), Defendants-Apellees.
    No. 15-1952.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 13, 2015.
    Filed: Aug. 18, 2015.
    
      Vivek Shah, Lexington, KY, pro se.
    Richard M. Pence, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

In this interlocutory appeal in a pro se action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), federal inmate Vivek Shah challenges the district court’s denials of preliminary injunctive relief.

After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying injunctive relief, because Shah did not show a clear threat of irreparable harm. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (appellate jurisdiction); H & R Block Tax. Servs., LLC v. Acevedo-Lopez, 742 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir.2014) (standard of review); Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C.L. Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir.1981) (en banc) (setting forth relevant factors to be considered in determining whether preliminary injunction should issue).

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
      
      . The Honorable Jerome T. Kearney, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).