USCA1 Opinion
March 29, 1996
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 95-1915
JOHN J. SULLIVAN,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. CUNNINGHAM, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
John J. Sullivan on brief pro se. ________________
Jeffrey R. Howard, Attorney General, Stephen J. Judge, Senior __________________ _________________
Assistant Attorney General, and Martin P. Honigberg, Assistant _____________________
Attorney General, on brief for appellees.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. We have carefully reviewed the ___________
parties' briefs and the record, including the transcript of
the May 5, 1995 hearing, and affirm the district court's
judgment denying appellant John J. Sullivan's request for a
preliminary injunction. We rely on essentially the reasons
set forth in the court's Order, dated July 11, 1995. We add
the two following comments.
1. The district court has "broad authority" in
applying to a given case the four factors for determining
whether to grant a preliminary injunction. United ______
Steelworkers v. Textron, Inc., 836 F.2d 6, 8 (1st Cir. 1987). ____________ _____________
Appellant argues that the court here abused its discretion by
only considering whether appellant was likely to succeed in
demonstrating that "but for" the unconstitutional retaliatory
motive, he would not have been transferred. See McDonald v. ___ ________
Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 18 (1st Cir. 1979). We disagree. Where, ____
as here, the court's factual findings in this regard are not
clearly erroneous, Roselli v. Affleck, 508 F.2d 1277, 1280 _______ _______
(1st Cir. 1974) (tentative findings of fact on a motion for
preliminary injunction are entitled to the normal, strong
presumption of correctness), there is no reason for it to
proceed to consider public interest or the risks of harm to
either party. Cf. Jackson v. Fair, 846 F.2d 811, 815, 820-21 ___ _______ ____
(1st Cir. 1988) (affirming the denial of an injunction based
only on likelihood of success on the merits).
-3-
2. Appellant claims that the district court should
have determined whether he likely would succeed on the merits
of all of his claims, not only the retaliatory transfer ___
claim. However, appellant does not explain, and we cannot
see, how consideration of all the claims could change the
result the district court reached. That is, even if the
court found appellant likely to succeed on one or more of
these claims, he still would not be entitled to the
injunction he seeks.
Affirmed. Local Rule 27.1. ________
-4-