                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                            ______________________

                                      No. 98-10551
                                 ______________________
     AJ’S WRECKER SERVICE, INC; VEHICLE REMOVAL CORP.;
    ELITE TOWING, INC.; NORTH TEXAS TOWING SERVICE, INC.;

                                                                        Plaintiffs-Appellants,
                                             versus
      CITY OF DALLAS TEXAS; MICHAEL MARCOTTE, Director,
                Individually and in His Official Capacity;
    BEN CLICK, The Chief of Police of the City of Dallas, Individually and
                        in His Official Capacity,
                                                      Defendants-Appellees.
                 ____________________________________________
     AJ’S WRECKER SERVICE, INC; VEHICLE REMOVAL CORP.;
    ELITE TOWING, INC.; NORTH TEXAS TOWING SERVICE, INC.;
                                                                                      Plaintiffs,
                                             versus
                CITY OF DALLAS TEXAS; CATHY TOLER,
                  Individually and in Her official Capacity;
            SAM LINDSAY, Individually and in His Official Capacity,

                                                Defendants-Appellees.
__________________________________________________________________

              Appeal from the United States District Court
                   for the Northern District of Texas
                           (3:97-CV-1311-D)
___________________________________________________________________

                       November 5, 1999
Before DUHÉ, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:*

       *
           Pursuant to 5th Cir. Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. Rule
          Based upon our review of the record and the briefs, we conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction at

issue. Of course, in so holding, we do not express an opinion on the merits of this

action, including the underlying statutory issues.
                                                                   AFFIRMED




47.5.4.
