NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 20

- 1538

_____________ WILNICK DORVAL , Appellant

v. KAC 357 INC. d/b/a Plaza Extra Supermarket; WALEED MOHAMMED HAMED

_______________ On Appeal from the District Court of the Virgin Islands (D.C. Civil No. 3

- 1 8

- cv
- 00095 ) District Judge: Honorable Anne E. Thompson

_______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L

. A

. R

. 34.1(a) December 10 , 20 20
Before: SMITH, Chief Judge , CHAGARES , and MATEY , Circuit Judges

. (Filed : Decemb er 17, 2020 )

_______________ OPINION *

_______________

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent.2 MATEY , Circuit Judge

. We consider Wilnick Dorval ’s claims against Plaza Extra Supermarket and its

owner that f or more than a year , store employees harassed and intimidated him because of
his race. Dorval filed this lawsuit in the District Court of the Virgin Islands, alleging mainly
racial discriminatio n and harassment , 1 and later filed m otions for a p reliminary i njunction , p ermanent i njunction, and t emporary r estrain ts

. Following a bench trial, t he District Court
found for Appellees on all counts and denied Dorval injunctive relief. Dorval timely appeals both orders. Finding no error, we will affirm.
I. D ISCUSSION
A. Dorval’s Claims Fail as a Matter of Law
We review the District Court’s factu al findings for clear error and exercise plenary
review over its legal conclusions

. Trs

. of Nat’l Elevator Indus. Pension, Health Benefit & Educ. Funds v. Lutyk , 332 F.3d 188, 191 (3d Cir. 2003) ( quoting In re Unisys Sav. Plan Litig., 173 F.3d 145, 149 (3d Ci r. 1999))

. Applying those standards, we conclude that the record supports the District Court ’s judgment that the evidence did not prove Dorval’s
claims. Dorval points to certain video recordings , but they do not involve Plaza Extra employees or named defendants. In contrast, other video s introduced at trial show Dorval shopp ing at Plaza Extra without interrupt ion or incident

. Because there is no basis to set
aside the District Court’s findings, we agree that Dorval has not prove n his allegations.

1 H e also allege d negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.3 B. Dorval I s Not Entitled to Injunctive Rel ief To obtain a preliminary injunction, 2 Dorval must show: (1) that he has “a reasonable probability of eventual success” in litigation; (2) that he will suffer irreparabl e injur y absent injunctive relief; (3) that the balance of harms favors him; and (4) that the relief he requests is in the pu blic interest. Reilly v. City of Harrisburg , 858 F.3d 173, 176 (3d Cir. 2017) ( quoting Del. River Port Auth. v. Transamerican Trailer Transp

. , Inc. , 501 F.2d 917, 919

– 20 (3d Cir. 1974)). We agree with the District Court that Dorval has not show n that he was treated differently by the Appellees based on his race

. So injunctive relief cannot be
awarded , and the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it denied his motions.
II . C ONCLUSION Dorval’s evidence presented at trial did not prove h is claims. And he has no basis for injunctive relief. For those reasons, we will affirm

.

2 Permanent injunctions have a similar standard but are harder to prove , because a person must show actual success on the merits

. Ferring Pharm., Inc. v. Watson Pharm., Inc. , 765 F.3d 205, 215 n.9 (3d Cir. 2014)

. Because Dorval cannot meet the preliminary injunction standard, he does not meet the requirements for a permanent injunction. We lack jurisdiction to review the grant or denial of Dorval’s request for a temporary restraining order

. Robinson v. Lehman , 771 F.2d 772, 782 (3d Cir. 1985) (“The denial of a temporary restraining order is not generally appealable unless its denial decides the merits of the case or is equ ivalent to a dismissal of the claim.”)

. The exceptions for review do not apply here , because the merits were decided by the District Court’s order and judgment after the trial , not by the order on the motion for a temporary restraining order

.