which requires that judgment be rendered as a matter of law, a trial court ruling on a motion for judgment on partial findings under Rule 52(c) is acting in the capacity of a finder of fact, weighing evidence and assessing the credibility of the witnesses. See United States v. $242,484-00, 389 F.3d 1149, 1172 (11th Cir.2004) (citing Caro-Galvan v. Curtis Richardson, Inc., 993 F.2d 1500, 1504 (11th Cir.1993)); see also Furth v. Inc. Publishing Corp., 823 F.2d 1178, 1179 (7th Cir.1987). Accordingly, appellate review of a judgment rendered under Rule 52(c) is for clear error only, and we afford the plaintiff no special deference and need not draw any inferences in his favor. See Int’l Union of Operating Engineers, Local 103 v. Indiana Constr. Corp., 13 F.3d 253, 257 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Von Zuckerstein v. Argonne Nat’l
holding that on appeal an appellate court does not have the right to weigh the evidence and decide the issue on the basis of its weight the courts duty goes no further than to determine whether the record contains any evidence tending to support the finding holding that under the advisory guidelines a district court should resolve factual disputes at sentencing by applying the preponderance of the evidence standard holding that the court of appeals must consider and weigh all of the evidence and may only set aside the finding if the evidence is so weak or if the finding is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence that it is clearly wrong and unjust holding that a proper review of the sufficiency of the evidence under the due process clause gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony to weigh the evidence and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts holding that the district court is within its prerogative to weigh the evidence resolve any conflicts in it and decide for itself where the preponderance lies 