With the following addition, the judgment below is affirmed on the basis of the opinions of the district court appearing at 71 F.R.D. 5.

The defendant contends that appointment of a magistrate as special master to determine damages was reversible error. The magistrate was not appointed pursuant to the Federal Magistrate’s Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), nor under Fed.R.Civ.P. 53(b), but explicitly under Rule 55(b)(2). The matter is not jurisdictional, nor was the question raised in the court below, thus it may not now be asserted for the first time.

AFFIRMED.