In this interlocutory appeal, Minnesota inmate “Reverend Beck, Ph.D.” challenges the district court’s 1 denial of his motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction. We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of a TRO. See Hamm v. Groose, 15 F.3d 110, 112-13 (8th Cir. 1994). As to the preliminary injunc *530 tion, the district court set forth the relevant factors and determined Beck had not met his burden of showing that a preliminary injunction should issue. See Dataphase Sys. Inc. v. CL Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113-14 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (to determine whether preliminary injunctive relief is warranted, court must balance threat of irreparable harm to movant, harm to nonmoving party should injunction issue, likelihood of success on merits, and public interest). We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion, clearly err in its fact finding, or make an error of law. See Safety-Kleen Sys., Inc. v. Hennkens, 301 F.3d 931, 935 (8th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.