IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20725

Summary Calendar 

HERBERT DARRELL HAY, also known as Michael Darnell Noe, 

Plaintiff-Appellant 

v. 

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH, in their official capacity only; 

TEXAS BOARD OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, in their official capacity only; TEXAS 

DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE - CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 

DIVISION, in their official capacity only; BRYAN COLLIER, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, only in his official 

capacity; RICK THALER, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, only in his official 

capacity; OWEN MURRAY, Director for University of Texas Medical Branch 

medical services, only in his official capacity; ROBERTO HERRERA, Head 

Warden of the Pack I Facility, in his individual and official capacities; FAUSTO 

AVILA, Facilities Physician and Director of Medical Services at the Pack Facility, 

in his individual and official capacities; SARA ABKE, University of Texas Medical 

Branch Senior Practice Manager, in her individual and official capacities; 

SHARON LOCKRIDGE, Nurse Practitioner, in her individual and official 

capacities; FUNMILAYO IBIROLKO, Registered Nurse for University of Texas 

Medical Branch and a night nurse, in her individual and official capacities; JOHN 

ALLEN, Pack I Unit Maintenance Officer, in his individual and official capacities; 

D. WHITE, Pack I Unit Maintenance Officer, in his individual and official 

capacities, 

Defendants-Appellees 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:15-CV-536

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 9, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20725 Document: 00513984933 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/09/2017
No. 15-20725

2 

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

In this civil action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act, Herbert Darrell Hay, Texas prisoner 

# 263672, challenges two orders entered by the district court. In one of the orders, 

the district court denied Hay’s motion for service of process upon the Texas Board 

of Criminal Justice. We lack jurisdiction over that non-final interlocutory order 

because the district court did not certify it for appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). 

Therefore, Hay’s appeal of that ruling is dismissed. The other order denied Hay’s 

motion for a preliminary injunction, and we do have jurisdiction to review that 

ruling. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). 

The denial of a preliminary injunction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 

White v. Carlucci, 862 F.2d 1209, 1211 (5th Cir. 1989). A movant for a preliminary 

injunction must demonstrate each of the following: (1) a substantial likelihood of 

success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat that failure to grant the injunction 

will result in irreparable injury; (3) the threatened injury outweighs any damage 

that the injunction will cause to the adverse party; and (4) the injunction will not 

have an adverse effect on the public interest. Byrum v. Landreth, 566 F.3d 442, 

445 (5th Cir. 2009). “The denial of a preliminary injunction will be upheld where 

the movant has failed sufficiently to establish any one of the four criteria.” Black 

Fire Fighters Ass’n v. City of Dallas, 905 F.2d 63, 65 (5th Cir. 1990) (emphasis in 

original). 

Hay asserts that the district court gave insufficient reasons for denying the 

motion for a preliminary injunction. In denying the preliminary injunction, the 

district court determined that Hay had failed to meet his burden of proof with 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be 

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 15-20725 Document: 00513984933 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/09/2017
No. 15-20725

3 

respect to each of the four pertinent factors, but found this to be the case 

“particularly as to showing a substantial threat of irreparable injury or a 

substantial likelihood of success on the merits.” These reasons, though brief, allow 

us to understand the basis for the denial of relief and are sufficient to satisfy 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a). See Burma Navigation Corp. v. Reliant 

Seahorse MV, 99 F.3d 652, 657 (5th Cir. 1996).

Liberally construed, Hay’s brief challenges only the determinations 

regarding irreparable injury and the likelihood of success on the merits; he does 

not address the other two Byrum factors. Because Hay has not shown he meets 

each of the four prerequisites for a preliminary injunction, he has not shown the 

district court abused its discretion in denying his motion. See Black Fire Fighters 

Ass’n, 905 F.2d at 65. 

Finally, Hay asserts the district court erred by not holding an evidentiary 

hearing on his request for injunctive relief. No hearing was necessary here where 

the motion was decided solely on the facts and evidence as presented by Hay. See

Kaepa, Inc. v. Achilles Corp., 76 F.3d 624, 628 (5th Cir. 1996); Parker v. Ryan, 959 

F.2d 579, 584 (5th Cir. 1992). The denial of the preliminary injunction is affirmed.

 APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION; 

AFFIRMED IN PART. 

 Case: 15-20725 Document: 00513984933 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/09/2017