Lantz v. Arctic Orion Fisheries

Full title: Warren Douglas LANTZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARCTIC ORION FISHERIES, a…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Mar 19, 1999

173 F.3d 860 (9th Cir. 1999)

Opinion

173 F.3d 860 (9th Cir. 1999) Warren Douglas LANTZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARCTIC ORION FISHERIES, a general partnership comprised of John Does I-III; Arctic Orion Inc.; Polmar Inc.; Polmar Fisheries Inc.; Arctic Orion F/V, Defendants-Appellees. No. 95-36170. No. CV-94-01257-CRD United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit March 19, 1999

Submitted March 15, 1999 ²

2 Lantz's request for oral argument is denied because the panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Carolyn R. Dimmick, District Judge, Presiding.

Before GOODWIN, KOZINSKI and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ¹

1 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Warren Douglas Lantz appeals pro se the district court's judgment after a bench trial in his action under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688, and maritime law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review de novo the district court's conclusions of law. See Exxon Co. v. Sofec, Inc., 54 F.3d 570, 573 (9th Cir.1995), aff'd 517 U.S. 830 (1996). We review for clear error the district court's findings of fact following a bench trial. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); Exxon, 54 F.3d at 576.

Because Lantz's counsel was permitted to cross-examine Dr. Coyle on the contents of plaintiff's Exhibit 34, Lantz's contention that the district court abused its discretion by excluding the exhibit lacks merit. See Freeman v. City of Santa Ana, 68 F.3d 1180, 1185 (9th Cir.1995) (reviewing exclusion of evidence for abuse of discretion and prejudice).

Our review of the record shows that the district court did not clearly err by rejecting Dr. Hamilton's testimony and accepting Dr. Coyle's testimony regarding causation. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); Exxon, 54 F.3d at 576 (stating that the trial court's credibility findings should be given special deference). Because the district court did not err by making a factual finding and legal conclusion that the door knob striking him did not contribute to the injury to Lantz's right eye, we affirm the judgment. See Exxon, 54 F.3d at 573, 576.

We deny Lantz's motion received by the court on October 29, 1996. ³

3 We have reviewed Lantz's remaining contentions and determine that they lack merit.

AFFIRMED.