AND NOW, this 3rd day of October, 2007, upon consideration of pro se plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 7), and it appearing that plaintiff's requested relief requires him to establish that: (1) he has a reasonable probability of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury will result without injunctive relief, (3) granting an injunction will avoid a comparably greater injury than denying it, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest, see BP Chems., Ltd. v. Formosa Chem. & Fibre Corp., 229 F.3d 254, 263 (3d Cir. 2000); Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Chamberlain, 145 F. Supp. 2d 621, 625 (M.D. Pa. 2001), and the court finding that plaintiff has produced insufficient evidence to establish a reasonable probability of success on the merits,*fn1 see Highmark, Inc. v. UPMC Health Plan, Inc., 276 F.3d 160, 173 (3d Cir. 2001), and that plaintiff has failed to establish that he faces injury that is imminent and probable,*fn2 see Anderson v. Davila, 125 F.3d 148, 163 (3d Cir. 1997), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 7) is DENIED.