February 23, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
_________________________
No. 95-1884
JOSE L. APONTE-FIGUEROA, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
BULK TERMINAL OPERATORS, INC.,
Defendant, Appellee.
_________________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Justo Arenas, U.S. Magistrate Judge] _____________________
_________________________
Before
Selya, Boudin and Lynch,
Circuit Judges. ______________
_________________________
Luis F. Padilla for appellants. _______________
Ruperto J. Robles for appellee. _________________
_________________________
_________________________
Per Curiam. The law of contract formation being Per Curiam. ___________
settled, the only question presented on this appeal is whether
the decision of the magistrate judge, entered after a full trial
over which he presided, see 28 U.S.C. 636(c), is clearly
erroneous in one or more respects. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). ___
The clear error hurdle is high: an appellate court "ought not to
upset findings of fact or conclusions drawn therefrom unless, on
the whole record, we form a strong, unyielding belief that a
mistake has been made." Cumpiano v. Banco Santander P.R., 902 ________ _____________________
F.2d 148, 152 (1st Cir. 1990); accord In re Tully, 818 F.2d 106, ______ ___________
109 (1st Cir. 1987).
Here, the hurdle is insurmountable. We have examined
the record in this case, read the parties' briefs, and
entertained oral argument. As a result of that careful review,
we conclude, without serious question, that no clear error
infects the magistrate's findings of fact. After all, "when
there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's
choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous." Johnson v. _______
Watts Regulator Co., 63 F.3d 1129, 1138 (1st Cir. 1995). _____________________
Consequently, we need go no further. We affirm the judgment
below for substantially the reasons set forth in the magistrate
judge's well-considered opinion. See Aponte-Figueroa v. Bulk ___ _______________ ____
Terminal Operators, Inc., No. 93-2488 (DRD) (JA), slip op. __________________________
(D.P.R. July 5, 1995).
Affirmed. Affirmed. ________
2