Jeffrey Scott Ratehford, Charles E. Butler, Robert R. Heffernan, and Dellemond Cunningham appeal the district court’s 1 interlocutory order denying their motions seeking injunctive relief and denying their motion for class certification.

At this time, we have jurisdiction to review only the denial of injunctive relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 (final-judgment rule), 1292(a)(1) (courts of appeals have jurisdiction from appeals of interlocutory orders from district courts refusing injunctions); Rein holdson v. Minnesota, 346 F.3d 847, 849 (8th Cir. 2003) (interlocutory appeal of denial of class certification not proper where plaintiffs did not seek permission under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(f) to appeal such denial or invoke any of recognized exceptions to final-judgment rule).

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants injunctive relief, because they failed to demonstrate that they faced a threat of irreparable harm. See Phelps-Roper v. Troutman, 662 F.3d 485, 488 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (standard of review); Roudachevski v. All-American Care Ctrs., Inc., 648 F.3d 701, 705 (8th Cir. 2011) (factor in determining whether preliminary injunction should issue is threat of irreparable harm to movant); see also Hartsfield v. Nichols, 511 F.3d 826, 831-32 (8th Cir. 2008) (to prove violation of right of access to courts, prisoner must establish state has not provided opportunity to litigate claim, resulting in actual injury, i.e., hindrance of nonfrivolous and arguably meritorious underlying legal claim).

Accordingly, we affirm the denial of in-junctive relief. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.