```
      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit



No. 97-1167


                     MICHAEL KEVIN DUPONT,
                     Plaintiff, Appellant,
                                
                               v.
                                
                        LARRY E. DUBOIS,
                      Defendant, Appellee.
                                


No. 97-1786

                      MICHAEL KEVIN DUPONT,
                      Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                v.

                     LARRY E. DUBOIS, ET AL.,
                      Defendants, Appellees.



No. 97-2134

                      MICHAEL KEVIN DUPONT,
                      Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                v.

                   LARRY EDWARD DUBOIS, ET AL.,
                      Defendants, Appellees.



         APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
               FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
                                
        [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]
                                





                             Before
                                
                     Torruella, Chief Judge,
               Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
                                


     Michael Kevin Dupont on brief pro se.
     Nancy Ankers White, Special Assistant Attorney General, and
David J. Rentsch, Counsel, Department of Correction, on brief for
appellee.





July 15, 1998



    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
              Per Curiam.  In these consolidated appeals, Michael
    Kevin DuPont appeals from the denial of preliminary injunction
    motions he filed in two civil rights cases.  Having limited our
    consideration to issues squarely presented to the district
    court and properly preserved for appellate consideration, we
    affirm for the following reasons.  
              First, the appellate brief largely reasserts
    arguments which were rejected by this court in a prior appeal. 
    See DuPont v. Dubois, 99 F.3d 1128, 1996 WL 649340 (1st Cir.
    1996) (unpublished per curiam).  We have found nothing in it
    which would cause us to revisit the conclusions reached in that
    appeal.
              Second, in appeal No. 97-2134, the district judge
    denied preliminary injunctive relief without prejudice,
    apparently for procedural reasons (the motions had been filed
    before the complaint had been screened under 28 U.S.C. � 1915A
    and before the defendants had been served).  On appeal, DuPont
    has made no attempt to explain how the court's ruling
    constituted an abuse of discretion or legal error, thereby
    waiving his claims as to this appeal.  See Playboy Enterprises,
    Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of Puerto Rico, 906 F.2d 25, 40 (1stCir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 959 (1990) (an issue not
    adequately raised in the appellate brief is waived) (citation
    omitted).  
              Finally, the motions filed by DuPont, which were
    summarily denied by the district court in appeal Nos. 97-1786
    and 97-1167, were conclusory and failed to show an entitlement
    to injunctive relief.  "[A] preliminary injunction is an
    extraordinary remedy that may be granted only by a clear
    demonstration by a plaintiff of the merits of such a request." 
    See 13 Moore's Fed. Prac. � 65.20, at 65-29 (3d ed. 1998)
    (footnotes omitted).  Under the circumstances, the district
    judge did not abuse his discretion or commit legal error in
    summarily denying the motions.  See Narragansett Indian Tribev. Guilbert, 934 F.2d 4, 5 (1st Cir. 1991)  ("Unless a mistake
    of law or an abuse of discretion is made manifest, we will not
    disturb the [denial of a preliminary injunction motion.]")
    (quotation marks and citation omitted).  
              Affirmed.
```