IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-60527 Summary Calendar

CHARLES LAVEL STRINGER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNKNOWN MCDANIELS; RON TILLMAN; ORAN PAGE; BARBARA DUNN; CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI; POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:99-CV-686-WS -------------------- March 21, 2001

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Charles Lavel Stringer has filed a

civil

rights lawsuit alleging that the defendants conspired to violate

his constitutional rights by arresting him pending his payment of

a 1984 fine and preventing him from appealing the arrest order. He

now appeals the district court’s interlocutory order denying his

motion for a preliminary injunction ordering the defendants to

reimburse him for the $450 fine payment.

1 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. A movant seeking a preliminary injunction must establish four

factors: “(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 may cause the opposing party, and

(4) the injunction will not disserve the public interest.”

Lakedreams v. Taylor,

(5th Cir. 1991). Because

a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy,

the movant must carry his burden of persuasion “by a clear

showing.” Mazurek v. Armstrong,

(1997) (citation

omitted).

Stringer failed to make a clear showing of the four required

factors. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying his motion for a preliminary injunction. See

Lakedreams,

.

AFFIRMED.

2