Hunt v. Johnson ( 2003 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-20533
Conference Calendar
STAN HUNT, of himself as an individual and on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GARY JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; JANIE COCKRELL,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-01-CV-3443
--------------------
February 19, 2003
Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Stan Hunt, Texas prisoner number 363715, has filed this
interlocutory appeal to challenge the district court’s denial of
his motion for a preliminary injunction in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983case. Hunt first argues that the district court erred by
declining to hold a hearing prior to denying his motion and by
giving insufficient factual findings and legal conclusions in its
order denying Hunt’s motion. Hunt has not shown reversible error
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 02-20533
-2-
in connection with either of these issues, as there is no dispute
concerning the basic facts underlying the case, and the district
court’s order denying the motion is sufficient to permit us to
review it. See Kaepa v. Achilles Corp., 76 F.3d 624, 628 (5th
Cir. 1996); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 52(a).
Hunt also argues that the district court erred in relying on
Hay v. Waldron, 834 F.2d 481, 484 (5th Cir. 1987), in its order
denying his motion. Because this case gives the standard for
analyzing whether a preliminary injunction should issue, the
district court did not err in relying upon it. Finally, Hunt
contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying
his motion because he has made a satisfactory showing as to all
of the required factors. Hunt has not shown that the district
court abused its discretion in denying his motion, as he has not
shown that he has a substantial likelihood of success on the
merits of his suit. See Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932 F.2d 1103,
1107 (5th Cir. 1991). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.