Metal Sales Mfg Corp v. Acadian Bldrs, et a

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FIFTH CIRCUIT

                             ____________

                             No. 96-30933
                             ____________


          METAL SALES MANUFACTURING CORP, USA, for the
          use and benefit of
               Plaintiff - Counter-Defendant - Appellee

          VERSUS

          ACADIAN BUILDERS OF GONZALES INC
               Defendant - Counter-Claimant - Cross-
               Defendant - Appellant
          AMERICAN BONDING COMPANY
               Defendant - Cross-Claimant - Appellant.



          Appeals from the United States District Court
                for the Western District of Texas
                           (94-CV-614)

                         September 25, 1997

Before    GIBSON1, JOLLY and, EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:2

     We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on

appeal and find that the magistrate judge did not clearly err in

allocating damages stemming from the Fort Polk Project.

     Acadian Builders seeks additional damages alleging that Metal



     1
          Circuit    Judge    for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by
designation.
     2
          Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R.
47.5.4.
Sales’ failure to timely deliver materials it was contractually

obligated to deliver to the Fort Polk Project caused it damage far

greater than that allotted by the magistrate judge.         Acadian

contends that the magistrate judge imposed too strenuous a burden

upon Acadian Builders.   See Austin v. Parker, 672 F.2d 508, 521

(5th Cir. 1982).   We disagree.    The magistrate judge merely made

credibility choices on conflicting evidence.     “Our reading of the

Louisiana cases convinced us that [Acadian Builders could have]

recover[ed] for [additional] amounts spent to complete the work in

excess of the contract price so long as [it had] prove[d] them to

the court’s satisfaction.”     Id. at 522.   It did not.

     Accordingly, we AFFIRM.




                                  -2-