### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 10-11155 Summary Calendar

CHRISTOPHER FLORES, Plaintiff - Appellant

v. EMILY JACOBS, Unit Classification Chief; K E VIN P. PINNEY, Major of Securi ty ; AMANDA MCCREE, Unit Classification Member; DAVID D. LOFTON, Cap t a i n 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 C o m m i t tee Member; WAYNE A. HINKLE, Cor r ectional 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: * U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Sep tem ber 2 6, 2 011 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-11155 Document: 00511612917 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/26/2011No. 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 m o t i o n for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. O ur c o urt l ack s j urisdiction 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 mu st demonstrate each of the following: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a subst a n tial threat that failure to grant the injunction will result in irrep ar ab l e 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 wil l be upheld where the movant has faile d s u fficiently 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 f irst 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 notshown the magistrate judge abused his discretion. Flores also asserts the magi s t r a t e judge erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing and ordering discovery and b ri e fing on his request for

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

injun c t iv e r elief. Our court reviews this matter for abuse of discretion. E.g. Anderson v. Jackson , 556 F.3d 351, 360-61 (5th Cir. 2009)

. F l o r e s ’ 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) heari n g , a n d he does not state how discovery and briefing would have changed the proceedings’ outcome. Flores’ unsupported allegatio n s a re insufficient to establish an abuse of discretion. The denial of the preliminary injunction is affirmed. 

### APPEAL DI SMI SS ED IN PART FOR LACK OF JURIS DI CTIO N; AFFI RMED I N PART.

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