ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Pro se prisoner David Ciempa interlocu-torily appeals from the district court’s order denying his “Second Motion to Reassert Motion for Preliminary Injunction.” We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we AFFIRM.
Background
Ciempa is currently incarcerated by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. In 2008, he sued various Department personnel in federal court, alleging that he was a member of “The Nation of Gods and Earths” (NGE) and that his religious freedoms were being violated.1
In July 2009, Ciempa filed a motion for a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order, arguing that he was being denied (1) access to the prison chapel; (2) the opportunity to buy “mandated pork- or pork by-product-free hygienic products”; (3) a Halal diet; and (4) access to “the religious periodical The Five Percenter.” R. at 97-98. The district court denied the motion, noting that Ciempa had not served the motion on any defendant, and he had not demonstrated why notice should be waived.
In December 2009, Ciempa filed a “Motion to Reassert His Motion for Preliminary Injunction.” Id. at 576. The district court, in August 2010, construed the motion as a second request for a preliminary injunction, and denied it on the merits, stating that “[t]he potential risk to prison safety that the requested injunction would create greatly outweighs the risk of harm to Ciempa,” and that it would not “second-guess prison officials’ reasonable determinations regarding prison safety without a fully developed record.” Id. at 642-43. Ciempa appealed to this court (No. 10-5120), where the appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Back in the district court, in August 2011, Ciempa filed a “Second Motion to Reassert Motion for Preliminary Injunction.” See id. at 1287. The court denied *510the motion, “finding] no clear error in the prior ruling, nor any other basis warranting reconsideration of the issues.” Id. at 1289. This appeal followed.2
Discussion
“To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must demonstrate: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood that the movant will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (8) that the balance of equities tips in the movant’s favor; and (4) that the injunction is in the public interest.” Att’y Gen. of Okla. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 565 F.3d 769, 776 (10th Cir.2009) (quotation omitted). Our review of an order denying preliminary injunctive relief is only for an abuse of discretion. Heideman v. S. Salt Lake City, 348 F.3d 1182, 1188 (10th Cir.2003). And in this case, our review is doubly deferential, as we are not simply reviewing an order denying preliminary injunctive relief; but rather, we are reviewing an order denying reconsideration of an order denying preliminary injunctive relief. See Jennings v. Rivers, 394 F.3d 850, 854 (10th Cir.2005) (observing that orders denying reconsideration are reviewed for an abuse of discretion).
After reviewing the record and the briefs, we conclude that the district court’s decision was not “arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable” so as to constitute an abuse of discretion. Att’y Gen. of Okla., 565 F.3d at 776 (quotations omitted). Ciempa has failed to establish to any degree that the balance of hardships and the public interest weighed in his favor. Indeed, on appeal, Ciempa cites evidence that supports the district court’s decision. He notes that in 2007, a Department chaplain authored an email stating that NGE adherents would not be given time on a religious-services schedule because of the group’s racist beliefs. Such beliefs are relevant to whether the requested injunction might pose a “potential risk to prison safety.” R. at 642. Clearly, jeopardizing prison safety constitutes injury to the Department and is adverse to the public interest — the third and fourth preliminary-injunction factors. Ciempa has not shown that the district court improperly weighed these factors, let alone that the court abused its discretion in denying reconsideration.3
Conclusion
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.