Frusher v. Baskin-Robbins Co ( 1994 )

USCA1 Opinion

          December 21, 1994
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________


        No. 94-1041

                              CECELIA PALMISANO FRUSHER,

                                      Appellant,

                                          v.

                      BASKIN-ROBBINS ICE CREAM COMPANY, ET AL.,

                                      Appellees.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND


                     [Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]
___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                  Cyr, Circuit Judge,
_____________
                          Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge, and
____________________
                                Stahl, Circuit Judge.
_____________

                                 ____________________

            Cecelia P. Frusher on brief pro se.
__________________
            Mark W. Freel and Edwards & Angell on brief for appellee.
_____________     ________________


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________





















                      Per Curiam.  Cecelia  P. Frusher appeals a judgment
__________

            of  the district court affirming a decision by the bankruptcy

            court  in  an  adversary  proceeding  initiated  by appellant

            against  her  former franchisor.    The  crux of  appellant's

            argument  is that  the  bankruptcy court  erred in  resolving

            against  her the  fact-dominated liability  issues underlying

            her claims  of misrepresentation,  fraud and deceit.   Having

            carefully reviewed  the briefs  and relevant portions  of the

            record in this six-day bench trial, we find no clear error in

            the bankruptcy court's factual  findings and no suggestion of

            legal error.  See In re G.S.F. Corp., 938 F.2d 1467 (1st Cir.
___ __________________

            1991).1   Accordingly, we need  not reach the  assignments of

            error relating to damages.  We see no support for appellant's

            further contention  that the decisions below  were influenced

            by gender bias.  

                      Affirmed.
________

                       









____________________

            1.  The parties' briefs join issue on the applicable standard
            of review in this court following the district court's review
            under Bankruptcy Rule 8013.   We adhere to the rule that this
            court "independently reviews the bankruptcy court's decision,
            applying the  clearly erroneous standard to  findings of fact
            and de novo  review to conclusions  of law."  GSF  Corp., 938
_________
            F.2d  at 1474.  Any errors committed by the district court in
            findings  of fact during its  review are rendered harmless by
            our independent review, so we  do not address those arguments
            in appellant's brief.