IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-11155

Summary Calendar

CHRISTOPHER FLORES,

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

EMILY JACOBS, Unit Classification Chief; KEVIN P. PINNEY, Major of

Security; AMANDA MCCREE, Unit Classification Member; DAVID D.

LOFTON, Captain of Security; KEVIN M. DEFOOR, Sergeant of Security;

BRENDA L. MOORE, Correctional Officer; TAMMY SARHANI, Lieutenant of

Security; CHANDA C. CLAY, Correctional Officer; JIMMY S. SMITH, Major of

Security; JOHN DOE #1, Classification Committee Member; WAYNE A.

HINKLE, Correctional Officer; RICHARD A. AVANTS, Captain of Security;

CARY J. COOK, Assistant Warden; ROBERT J. EASON, Senior Warden,

Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:09-CV-44

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 26, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-11155 Document: 00511612917 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/26/2011
No. 10-11155

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Christopher Flores, Texas prisoner

# 1336588, consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. Proceeding pro se,

he challenges the magistrate judge’s denial of his motion for a temporary

restraining order and preliminary injunction. 

Our courtlacks jurisdiction over denial of the temporary restraining order;

therefore, Flores’ appeal of that ruling is dismissed. Faulder v. Johnson, 178

F.3d 741, 742 (5th Cir. 1999). Our court does have jurisdiction to review denial

of the preliminary injunction. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).

The denial of a preliminary injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion. 

E.g. Women’s Med. Ctr. v. Bell, 248 F.3d 411, 418-19 (5th Cir. 2001). A movant

for a preliminary injunction must demonstrate each of the following: (1) a

substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat that

failure to grant the injunction will result in irreparable injury; (3) the threatened

injury outweighs any damage that the injunction will cause to the adverse party;

and (4) the injunction will not have an adverse effect on the public interest. Id.

at 419 n.15. “The denial of a preliminary injunction will be upheld where the

movant has failed sufficiently to establish any one of the four criteria.” Black

Fire Fighters Ass’n v. City of Dallas, 905 F.2d 63, 65 (5th Cir. 1990) (emphasis

in original). 

In denying the preliminary injunction, the magistrate judge determined

Flores’ allegations failed to “demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits,

that the threatened injury outweighed any damage that might be caused to the

Defendants, or that the requested relief was not adverse to the public interest”. 

Flores’ brief, liberally construed, challenges only the first of the magistrate

judge’s determinations; he does not address the other two. Because Flores has

not shown he meets each of the four prerequisites for a preliminary injunction,

he has not shown the magistrate judge abused his discretion. 

Flores also asserts the magistrate judge erred by not holding an

evidentiary hearing and ordering discovery and briefing on his request for

2

Case: 10-11155 Document: 00511612917 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/26/2011
No. 10-11155

injunctive relief. Our court reviews this matter for abuse of discretion. E.g.

Anderson v. Jackson, 556 F.3d 351, 360-61 (5th Cir. 2009). Flores’ assertion is

without merit. He does not state what additional testimony and evidence would

have been adduced at an evidentiary hearing that was not already presented at

the Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985) hearing, and he does not

state how discovery and briefing would have changed the proceedings’ outcome. 

Flores’ unsupported allegations are insufficient to establish an abuse of

discretion. The denial of the preliminary injunction is affirmed. 

APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION;

AFFIRMED IN PART.

3

Case: 10-11155 Document: 00511612917 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/26/2011