N O T PRECEDENTIAL

U N IT E D STATES COURT OF APPEALS

F O R THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 06-1357

JOHN P. HARRIS, III;

K IM B E R L Y HARRIS, HUSBAND AND WIFE

v. U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA,

d o in g business as UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Appellant

On Appeal from the United States District Court

f o r the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(0 3 -c v -0 6 4 3 0

M a g is tra te Judge: Thomas J. Rueter

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

M a rc h 1, 2007

B e f o re : SCIRICA, Chief Judge, MCKEE, NOONAN * , Circuit Judges.

(F ile d March 14, 2007)

M c K e e , Circuit Judge. T h e United States appeals the judgment that was entered following a trial before a M a g is tra te Judge on claims brought by plaintiffs, husband and wife, under the Federal T o rt Claims Act. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.

In a sm u c h as we write primarily for the parties who are familiar with the b a c k g ro u n d of this case, we need not repeat the factual or procedural background. The o n ly issue raised on appeal is whether the award of $520,000 for pain and suffering was e x c es s iv e . We have reviewed the extremely thorough, careful and thoughtful M e m o r a n d u m of Decision filed by Magistrate Judge Rueter dated, November 2, 2005, s e ttin g forth his findings of fact and conclusions of law. We will affirm the award for p a i n and suffering substantially for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Rueter's Memorandum of Decision.

In explaining why he was denying the government's motion for remittitur, the M a g is tra te Judge explained: T h e [amount] is well supported by the court's 32 page opinion, w h ic h contains 155 findings of fact and conclusions of law. There is no n e e d for this court to say more to support its decision in this case, except to n o te the obvious. Reasonable minds will differ when quantifying the e m o t io n a l and physical pain and suffering and the loss of life's pleasures of a n o th e r individual. ... the mere fact that the government disagrees with the c o u rt's assessment of Mr. Harris' non-economic damages is no basis for th is court to alter its award which was given after careful deliberation and r e f le c ti o n .

A p p . 004 (citing Herb v. Hallowell, 154a. 582, 584 (Pa. 1939) and Waldorf v. Shuta, 142 F .3 d 601, 623 (3d Cir. 1998)).

N o th in g more needs to be said. It is clear to us that the award which the g o v e rn m e n t is challenging was indeed "given after careful deliberation and reflection," a n d the fact that the government disagrees with the result of the court's analysis clearly d o e s not justify our setting aside an award for pain and suffering which the Magistrate J u d g e properly calculated and explained.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we will affirm the order denying the G o v ern m en t's Post-Trial Motion For A Remittitur.

* The Honorable John T. Noonan, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, sitting by designation.