David Thrasher appeals the district court’s 1 order denying his motion for preliminary injunctive relief. Upon review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion based on Thrasher’s failure to allege a viable basis for granting the requested relief. See Hamm v. Groose, 15 F.3d 110, 112-13 (8th Cir. 1994) (standard of review); Dataphase Sys. Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981) (preliminary-injunction factors). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.