Arkansas inmate Hollis Martz appeals the district court’s 1 interlocutory order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (appellate jurisdiction); St. Louis Effort for AIDS v. Huff, 782 F.3d 1016, 1021 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of review); Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. CL Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (preliminary-injunction factors). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.