March 29, 1996

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________





        No. 95-1915







                                  JOHN J. SULLIVAN,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                            MICHAEL J. CUNNINGHAM, ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.





                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE



                    [Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



            John J. Sullivan on brief pro se.
            ________________

            Jeffrey  R. Howard,  Attorney General,  Stephen J.  Judge,  Senior
            __________________                      _________________

        Assistant  Attorney  General,  and  Martin  P.  Honigberg,   Assistant
                                            _____________________

        Attorney General, on brief for appellees.





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________





                      Per  Curiam.    We  have   carefully  reviewed  the
                      ___________





























            parties' briefs  and the record, including  the transcript of



            the  May 5,  1995 hearing,  and  affirm the  district court's



            judgment denying  appellant John J. Sullivan's  request for a



            preliminary injunction.   We rely on  essentially the reasons



            set forth  in the court's Order, dated July 11, 1995.  We add



            the two following comments.



                      1.   The  district court  has "broad  authority" in



            applying  to a given  case the  four factors  for determining



            whether  to   grant   a  preliminary   injunction.     United
                                                                   ______



            Steelworkers v. Textron, Inc., 836 F.2d 6, 8 (1st Cir. 1987).
            ____________    _____________



            Appellant argues that the court here abused its discretion by



            only considering  whether appellant was likely  to succeed in



            demonstrating that "but for" the unconstitutional retaliatory



            motive,  he would not have been transferred.  See McDonald v.
                                                          ___ ________



            Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 18 (1st  Cir. 1979).  We disagree.  Where,
            ____



            as  here, the court's factual findings in this regard are not



            clearly erroneous,  Roselli v.  Affleck, 508 F.2d  1277, 1280
                                _______     _______



            (1st Cir. 1974) (tentative  findings of fact on a  motion for



            preliminary  injunction are  entitled to  the  normal, strong



            presumption of  correctness), there  is no reason  for it  to



            proceed to consider public  interest or the risks of  harm to



            either party.  Cf. Jackson v. Fair, 846 F.2d 811, 815, 820-21
                           ___ _______    ____



            (1st Cir. 1988) (affirming the  denial of an injunction based



            only on likelihood of success on the merits).











                                         -3-





























                      2.  Appellant claims that the district court should



            have determined whether he likely would succeed on the merits



            of  all of  his  claims, not  only  the retaliatory  transfer
                ___



            claim.  However,  appellant does not  explain, and we  cannot



            see, how  consideration of  all the  claims could  change the



            result  the district  court reached.   That  is, even  if the



            court found appellant  likely to  succeed on one  or more  of



            these  claims,  he  still  would  not  be   entitled  to  the



            injunction he seeks.



                      Affirmed.  Local Rule 27.1.
                      ________



































































                                         -4-