-
USCA1 Opinion
November 15, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
_________________________
No. 95-1367
MICHAEL E. FERRIS, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Morris E. Lasker, Senior U.S. District Judge] __________________________
____________________
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge, _____________
Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________
and Cyr, Circuit Judge. _____________
____________________
Thomas J. Gleason on brief for appellant. _________________
Harvey M. Forman, Forman & Forman, and Robert O. Berger, III ________________ _______________ _____________________
on joint brief for appellees.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. The plaintiffs, disappointed by the Per Curiam. ___________
district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law
following a bench trial, see Ferris v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage ___ ______ __________________________
Corp., No. 94-10470, slip op. (D. Mass. Mar. 7, 1995), appeal _____
from the ensuing judgment. The standard of review, though not
insurmountable, is daunting. See Cumpiano v. Banco Santander ___ ________ _______________
P.R., 902 F.2d 148, 152 (1st Cir. 1990) (describing high degree ____
of deference that must "be paid to the trier's assessment of the
evidence" in a jury-waived trial); Reliance Steel Prods. Co. v. __________________________
National Fire Ins. Co., 880 F.2d 575, 576-77 (1st Cir. 1989) ________________________
(similar); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). This standard makes ___ ____
it clear that an appellate tribunal "ought not to upset findings
of fact or conclusions drawn therefrom unless, on the whole of
the record, [the judges] form a strong, unyielding belief that a
mistake has been made." Cumpiano, 902 F.2d at 152. In other ________
words, as long as the district court's rendition of the record is
plausible, our inquiry is at an end.
So it is here. We have carefully reviewed the trial
transcript, the record on appeal, and the parties' briefs. We
discern no error, and, given the standard of review, we perceive
no fairly debatable issues demanding extended appellate scrutiny.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment for
substantially the reasons elucidated in the thorough, well-
reasoned opinion below.
We need go no further. The judgment of the district
court is summarily affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.1. ___
2
Affirmed. Affirmed ________
3
Document Info
Docket Number: 95-1367
Filed Date: 11/15/1995
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 9/21/2015