___________ No. 94-4009

___________ Frank W. Askew, Jr., * * Appellant, * * v. * * W. Freeman, CO-1; Lt. Brown, * Delta Regional Unit, Arkansas * Department of Correction; Major * Larry D. Jordan, Delta Regional * Unit, Arkansas Department of * Correction; J. Gasaway, * Assistant Warden, Delta Regional * Unit, Arkansas Department of * Correction; S. Frank Thompson, * Warden, Delta Regional Unit, * Arkansas Department of * Correction; M. Fox, Inmate, * Delta Regional Unit, Arkansas * Appeal from the United States Department of Correction; R. * District Court for the Byrd, Inmate, Delta Regional * Eastern District of Arkansas. Unit, Arkansas Department of * Correction; G. McCree, Inmate, * (UNPUBLISHED) Delta Regional Unit, Arkansas * Department of Correction; Dr. H. * W. Thomas, Delta Regional Unit, * Arkansas Department of * Correction; Charlie Hopper, * Disciplinary Hearing Officer, * Delta Regional Unit, Arkansas * Department of Correction; G. * Phillips, Correctional Officer, * Delta Regional Unit, Arkansas * Department of Correction; James * Thomas, Infirmary Manager, Delta * Regional Unit, Arkansas * Department of Correction; B. * Phillips, CO-1; Gammel, CO-1, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: December 7, 1995 Filed: December 18, 1995

### The Honorable Elsijane Trimble Roy, United States Distric t 1 

### Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the rep ort and recomm endationof the Honorable Jerry W. Cavaneau, United State s Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
-2- ___________ Before WOLLMAN, MAGILL, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
In this c ivil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Frank W. Askew, Jr., an Arkansas inmate, appeals the district court's order denying hi s 1 reques t for a preliminary injunction against prison officials and hi s motion to compel discovery. We affirm the order of the district court.

Askew al leged even though he suffers from epileptic seizures and a physician recommended that he not use sharp tool s, prison officials forced himto do fieldwork chopping down trees using sharp instruments. Aske w also a lleged prison medical personnel accused him of faking seizures

. Askew sought a preliminary injunction to prevent defendants from assigning himto fie ld duty, and to require defendants to recognize his medica l condition.

The district court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction , concluding Askew had not shown a threat of irreparable harm and granting relief would contravene public policy. The district court also denie d Askew's motion to compel discovery.

We con clude the district court did not abuse its discretion i n denying the motion fo r injunctive relief. In Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys. , Inc. , 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981), this court identified fou r fact ors district courts must consider in deciding whether to grant a preliminaryinjunction: 1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; 2) the state of the balance between this harm an d the injury that granting the injunction will inflict

### -3-

on other parties litigant; 3) the probability th at the movant will succeed

on the merits; and 4) the public interest. Dataphase , 640 F.2d at 113

. Althoughno single factor is dispositive, id. , a movant must establish a threat of irreparable harm; without a finding of irreparable injury a preliminaryinjunction should not be issued. Modern Computer Sys., Inc. v. Modern Banking Sys., Inc. , 871 F.2d 734, 738 (8th Cir. 1989) (en banc).

We agree Askew did not show the threat of irreparable harm. Eve n assuming Askew has had seizures, only one of several physicians who have examined Askew expressed a concern about Askew w orking with sharp objects, and Askew did not ide ntify any incidents in the field attributable to his seizures. Under these facts, any threat of harm is speculative. See Loca l Union No. 884 v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. , 61 F.3d 1347, 1355 (8th Cir. 1995). We also agree Askew has not demonstrated a probability of success

on the merit s. See Aziz v. Moore , 8 F.3d 13, 15 (8th Cir. 1993) (pe r curiam).

Finally, we conclude the district co urt did not abuse its discretion in refusing to compel discovery of records already produced. See Kinkead v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. , 49 F.3d 454, 457 (8th Cir. 1995) (district court' s refusal to compel discovery reviewed for gross abuse o f discretion).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.