UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA FOR THE USE AND
BENEFIT OF JOSEPH SHISKO,
INCORPORATED, a South Carolina
Corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
                                                                         No. 98-1042
v.

METRIC CONSTRUCTORS,
INCORPORATED; AETNA CASUALTY &
SURETY COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston.
Julian Abele Cook, Jr., Senior District Judge, sitting by designation.
(CA-94-1894)

Argued: October 28, 1998

Decided: December 18, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and
BOYLE, Chief United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of North Carolina, sitting by designation.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Timothy William Bouch, YOUNG, CLEMENT, RIVERS
& TISDALE, L.L.P., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant.
James Livingston Bruner, BRUNER, POWELL & ROBBINS, L.L.C.,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Stephen P.
Groves, Sr., Stephen L. Brown, YOUNG, CLEMENT, RIVERS &
TISDALE, L.L.P., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Shisko, Inc. (Shisko) appeals from the judgment entered in
favor of Metric Constructors, Inc. (Metric) and its surety, Aetna Casu-
alty & Surety Co., on Shisko's claims for breach of contract and vio-
lation of the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. § 270(b). Metric was the general
contractor hired to build a new federal correctional facility in Estill,
South Carolina. Metric subcontracted with Shisko to paint the facility.
Shisko alleges, among other things, that Metric mismanaged the proj-
ect by improperly coordinating and sequencing the work of subcon-
tractors, permitting other tradesmen to damage Shisko's completed
work, and scheduling and rescheduling Shisko's work in an ineffi-
cient way (and without adequate notice). This mismanagement,
Shisko claims, required it to work an extra 152 days on the job, and
it sought damages for this alleged delay.

After a bench trial, the district court concluded that neither the sub-
contract (which had a "no damages for delay" clause) nor South Caro-
lina case law allowed Shisko any recovery for damages due to delays.
The court also found, in any event, that Shisko failed to give adequate
notice of its claims for additional compensation as required by the
subcontract. Finally, the court relied on United States f/u/b Shields,
Inc. v. Citizens and Southern National Bank, 367 F.2d 472 (4th Cir.
1966), to indicate that Shisko did not adequately apportion delay
damages between those that were and were not attributable to Met-
ric's mismanagement.

                    2
After considering the parties' briefs, the appendix, and the argu-
ments of counsel, we affirm on the findings and conclusions of the
district court. See United States f/u/b Joseph Shisko, Inc. v. Metric
Constructors, Inc. and Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., No. CA 94-1894-19,
order (D.S.C. Dec. 10, 1997).

AFFIRMED

                    3
