[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 00-1243

MARITIMES & NORTHEAST PIPELINE, L.L.C.,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

1.43 ACRES OF LAND IN THE TOWN OF LISBON, COUNTY OF ANDROSCOGGIN, STATE OF MAINE,

Defendant,

DAVID MOCKLER,

Defendant, Appellant,

LAWRENCE B. STEWART; CLAUDETTE STEWART; NORMAND J. VALLEE; STATE OF MAINE,

Defendants.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge, Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges. David Mockler on brief pro se. James T. Kilbreth, Juliet T. Browne, Hope K. Creal and Verrill & Dana, LLP on brief for appellee Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.

December 29, 2000 Per Curiam. Following a one-day bench trial, the

district court upheld the validity of a grant of easement

which afforded the appellee pipeline company a right-of-way

across appellant Mockler's property to construct and

maintain a natural gas pipeline. Mockler now appeals,

raising two assignments of error. As we find neither

persuasive, we summarily affirm.

Mockler first argues that his charge of fraud was

impermissibly rejected. The district court found, contrary

to Mockler's assertions, that appellee had not

misrepresented the pipeline's location to him in the course

of negotiating the easement and, further, that a revised

route had been properly approved by the government prior to

that time. "In reviewing factual findings, this court

applies the clear-error standard of review," Vinick v.

United States,

(1st Cir. 2000), under which we

accept the lower court's findings unless we are "left with

the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been

committed," Anderson v. City of Bessemer City,

(1985) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum

Co.,

(1948)). Our review of the record

-3- reveals no such mistake. Mockler's own witnesses (two

neighboring landowners) belied any suggestion that

appellee's "land agent" was purveying false information.

And appellee's evidence concerning the approval of "Reroute

63-D" went entirely unrebutted. There was no clear error.1

Mockler also contends that he was denied his

Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury. Yet he has not

even attempted to explain how this case--a diversity action

seeking a declaratory judgment as to the validity of an

easement--might involve "rights and remedies of the sort

traditionally enforced in an action at law, rather than in

an action in equity." Pernell v. Southall Realty,

(1974). The argument not only is without merit but

also has been waived--whether because of the lack of

"developed argumentation" on appeal, United States v.

Zannino,

(1st Cir. 1990), or because of the

lack of objection below, see, e.g., 8 Moore's Federal

Practice §§ 38.52[4], 39.13[1][c] (3d ed. 2000).

Affirmed. See Loc. R. 27(c).

1 Even if a misrepresentation had occurred, we fail to see how Mockler could establish justifiable reliance thereon, in light of his admitted failure to read the contract or to review the accompanying diagram which accurately depicted the pipeline's route across his property. See, e.g., Francis v. Stinson,

(Me. 2000).

-4-