Ervin Sonny Streater appeals the district court’s judgment, after a bench trial, in favor of North Point Trawlers, Inc. (NPT). NPT filed a declaratory judgment action concerning the duty of NPT to pay Streater maintenance and cure benefits as a result of a September 29, 2002, accident. Streater, in turn, filed a counterclaim seeking damages of maintenance and cure benefits. 1 On appeal, Streater asserts the district court erred in (1) finding NPT had no duty to pay maintenance and cure benefits *908 to Streater, and (2) failing to require a written agreement between NPT and Streater, pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 10601.

As to the first issue, we conclude Streater was not answerable to the call of duty at the time of the accident, and affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s well-reasoned order of September 29, 2005. As to the second issue, the district court did not address this issue in its order because Streater did not raise it until filing Proposed Conclusions of Law after the bench trial. This was too late to raise a new legal issue for the first time. See MCA Television Ltd. v. Feltner, 89 F.3d 766, 771 (11th Cir. 1996) (stating when a legal issue was raised for the first time in closing argument, “the time to raise this issue was in the issue of law section of the pretrial stipulation, or, at the very latest, during his case at trial”). Streater failed to timely raise this issue in the district court, and he cannot now raise it here. See id.

AFFIRMED.