Court Opinion

ID: 2963794
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:15:16.2286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:00.673226
License: Public Domain

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          November 15, 1995     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                                 NOT FOR PUBLICATION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