
    SPHEAR INVESTMENTS, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SUNGLASS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Hawaii Limited Liability Company, Defendant, and Doyle Betsill, an individual, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-56305.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 13, 2014.
    
    Filed Aug. 20, 2014.
    Marcus Scott Bird, Kevin Robert Nim-mons, Hollister & Brace, Santa Barbara, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Doyle Betsill, Dominican, Republic, pro se.
    Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Doyle Betsill appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for Sphear Investments, LLC in Sphear’s diversity action for breach of contract. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Morrison v. Hall, 261 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Sphear established that there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to Betsill’s liability under the lease. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (a party may prevail at summary judgment by showing that there is an absence of evidence supporting the nonmoving party’s case).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Betsill’s post-judgment “Request for Order Permitting Defendant to Participate in the CM/ECF Electronic Filing System and to Receive a Log/Password for that Purpose.” See Preminger v. Peake, 552 F.3d 757, 769 n. 11 (9th Cir.2008) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decisions regarding management of litigation).

We reject Betsill’s contentions concerning the allegedly improper service of Sphear’s motion for summary judgment and the district court’s failure to provide Rand notice or educate Betsill about the electronic filing system.

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