From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shah v. Samuels

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
Aug 18, 2015
612 F. App'x 859 (8th Cir. 2015)

Opinion

No. 15-1952

08-18-2015

Vivek Shah Plaintiff - Appellant v. Charles E. Samuels, Jr., D.S.C.C. Administrator, sued in his official capacity; United States of America; Jose A. Santana, DSCC Administrator (originally named as Doe) Defendants - Appellees


Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock [Unpublished] Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.

In this interlocutory appeal in a pro se action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), federal inmate Vivek Shah challenges the district court's denials of preliminary injunctive relief.

The Honorable Jerome T. Kearney, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). --------

After careful review of the record and the parties' arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying injunctive relief, because Shah did not show a clear threat of irreparable harm. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (appellate jurisdiction); H&R Block Tax. Servs. LLC v. Acevedo-Lopez, 742 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review); Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C.L. Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (setting forth relevant factors to be considered in determining whether preliminary injunction should issue).

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.


Summaries of

Shah v. Samuels

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
Aug 18, 2015
612 F. App'x 859 (8th Cir. 2015)
Case details for

Shah v. Samuels

Case Details

Full title:Vivek Shah Plaintiff - Appellant v. Charles E. Samuels, Jr., D.S.C.C…

Court:United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

Date published: Aug 18, 2015

Citations

612 F. App'x 859 (8th Cir. 2015)