Acevedo Diaz, et al v. Aponte, et al
Case Date: 02/26/1993
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 92-1847
|
February 9, 1993 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT _________________________ No. 92-1847 FRANCO ACEVEDO DIAZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. JOSE E. APONTE DE LA TORRE, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. _________________________ DIANETTE MATOS, ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellants. _________________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Justo Arenas, U.S. Magistrate Judge] _____________________ _________________________ Before Selya, Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________ _________________________ Raul Barrera Morales for appellants. ____________________ William Reyes Elias, with whom Cesar R. Miranda Law Office ___________________ ____________________________ was on brief, for defendants-appellees. _________________________ _________________________ Per Curiam. The appellants herein, plaintiffs Per Curiam. ___________ below, appeal from adverse jury verdicts. We have canvassed the record, studied the briefs, and entertained oral argument. The evidence was clearly conflicting. And, moreover, the plaintiffs neither challenged the magistrate judge's jury instructions nor moved for a new trial after the verdicts were rendered. Under the circumstances, we need go no further: we decline to disturb the jury's evaluative judgments, its resolution of evidentiary conflicts, or its choice among what were, at the very least, plausible, albeit competing, inferences. See La Amiga del Pueblo, Inc. v. Robles, 937 F.2d 689, 691 (1st ___ _________________________ ______ Cir. 1991). This appeal, in its present posture, presents no fairly debatable question for appellate review. We, therefore, summarily affirm.1 See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. ___ Affirmed. Affirmed. ________ ____________________ 1The companion appeals, Nos. 92-1846 and 92-1848, consolidated for oral argument before us, will be resolved by separate opinion. |