UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

GOSHEN ROAD ENVIRONMENTAL

ACTION TEAM, a community

organization; IRIS BROWN; HATTIE

BROWN,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE; UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

No. 95-3102

Secretary; RURAL HOUSING AND

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICE;

RURAL HOUSING AND COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT SERVICE,

Administrator; NORTH CAROLINA

STATE DIRECTOR, Rural Housing and

Community Development Service;

TOWN OF POLLOCKSVILLE,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville.

Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge.

(CA-95-36-4-H-1)

Argued: October 30, 1996

Decided: December 16, 1996

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and LUTTIG,

Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Eleanette Maccene Brown, Land Loss Prevention Project,

NCCU LAW SCHOOL, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellants.

Barbara Dickerson Kocher, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh,

North Carolina; Clare Lynn Brock, WOOTEN & BROCK, P.L.L.C.,

Trenton, North Carolina, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs, Goshen Road Environmental Action Team and two residents of the Goshen Road community, moved in the district court for

a preliminary injunction closing the Town of Pollocksville's waste

water and sewage treatment facility during the pendency of their suit

for declaratory relief and permanent injunctive relief. Plaintiffs allege

that the facility was constructed in the Goshen Road community

because it is a predominantly black neighborhood, in violation of

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and that the defendants violated the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C.

§ 4332(2)(c). Plaintiffs argued, inter alia, that a preliminary injunction against further operation of the currently-operating facility is necessary because the lagoon and spray fields associated with the facility

will blight the community and adversely affect the residents, and that

the facility will adversely affect historical and cultural preservation

interests. The defendants argued that they are on a timetable for

repayment of loan monies for the facility and that a preliminary

injunction would cause them to default on their loan and abandon the

project. J.A. at 187-88.

 2
The district court concluded that the alleged injury to the plaintiffs

would not be irreparable, that an injunction would substantially harm

the defendants and other interested parties, and that keeping the facility operational pending resolution of the case would not permanently

damage the public interest. Accordingly, the district court denied the

motion for preliminary injunction. J.A. at 189-90.

We have read the briefs, heard oral argument, and carefully considered the parties' contentions. For the reasons stated by the district

court, we affirm.

AFFIRMED

 3