___________

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Correction; G. McCree, Inmate, * (UNPUBLISHED)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 District

1

Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and

recommendation of the Honorable Jerry W. Cavaneau, United States

Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

-2-

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MAGILL, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Frank W. Askew,

Jr., an Arkansas inmate, appeals the district court's order denying his

1

request for a preliminary injunction against prison officials and his

motion to compel discovery. We affirm the order of the district court.

 Askew alleged even though he suffers from epileptic seizures and a

physician recommended that he not use sharp tools, prison officials forced

him to do fieldwork chopping down trees using sharp instruments. Askew

also alleged prison medical personnel accused him of faking seizures.

Askew sought a preliminary injunction to prevent defendants from assigning

him to field duty, and to require defendants to recognize his medical

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 denied

Askew's motion to compel discovery.

We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying the motion for injunctive relief. In Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L

Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1981), this court identified four

factors district courts must consider in deciding whether to grant a

preliminary injunction: 1) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant;

2) the state of the balance between this harm and the injury that granting

the injunction will inflict
-3-

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

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

Although no single factor is dispositive, id., a movant must establish a

threat of irreparable harm; without a finding of irreparable injury a

preliminary injunction 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. Even

assuming Askew has had seizures, only one of several physicians who have

examined Askew expressed a concern about Askew working with sharp objects,

and Askew did not identify any incidents in the field attributable to his

seizures. Under these facts, any threat of harm is speculative. See Local

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 merits. See Aziz v. Moore, 8 F.3d 13, 15 (8th Cir. 1993) (per

curiam).

Finally, we conclude the district court 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 of

discretion). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

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