UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT GOSHEN ROAD ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION TEAM, a community organization; IRIS BROWN; HATTIE BROWN,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_________________________________________________________________Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit.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 neig hborhood, in violation ofTitle 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 lag oon 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.
2The district court concluded that the alleged injury to the plaintiffs would not be irreparable, that an injunction would substantially harmthe 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