
    Patrick B. VAUGHN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-55707.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Jan. 7, 2013.
    Filed March 5, 2013.
    Peter S. Forgie, Arthur A. Leonard, Forgie & Leonard, LLP, Santa Monica, CA, Charles Douglas Naylor, Esquire, The Law Offices of Charles Naylor, San Pedro, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Jeanne M. Franken, Esquire, Eric Kaufman-Cohen, U.S. Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appel-lee.
    Before: W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Edward R. Korman, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Appellant Patrick Vaughn (Vaughn) appeals the district court’s dismissal of his negligence and unseaworthiness claims against the United States.

The district court did not commit clear error in finding that Vaughn failed to prove negligence under the Jones Act. The district court’s finding that Vaughn’s injury was caused by his own decision to lift the life raft canister manually was “plausible in light of the entire record, ... [and we] may not reverse ...” Balen v. Holland Am. Line, Inc., 588 F.3d 647, 655 (9th Cir.2009) (citations omitted).

Nor did the district court commit clear error in finding that manual lifting of life raft canisters was not an unsafe work method that rendered the Cape Jacob un-seaworthy. This finding was plausible given the multiple witnesses who testified that it is incumbent upon seamen to manually lift life raft canisters in the course of their duties. See Conrad v. United States, 447 F.3d 760, 768 (9th Cir.2006) (noting that a district court’s decision to credit testimony uncontroverted by extrinsic evidence “can virtually never be clear error”) (citation omitted).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     