
    Daryl ARMSTEAD, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Moti RAGHUNATH, C.F.M. 1 and CURTIS WELLS, Assistant F.M., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 09-57005.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 12, 2011.
    
    Filed July 15, 2011.
    Daryl Armstead, Norco, CA, pro se.
    Gretchen Buechsenschuet, Esquire, Mina Choi, Esquire, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Suzanne Antley, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Daryl Armstead, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment, Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc), and for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a motion to amend, City of Los Angeles v. San Pedro Boat Works, 635 F.3d 440, 446 (9th Cir.2011), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Armstead failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were aware of his grievance prior to changing the lunch and dinner menus. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.2005) (listing elements of a retaliation claim); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 808 (9th Cir.1995).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Armstead’s motion for leave to amend where the motion was filed after briefing on defendants’ summary judgment motion was complete. See M/V Am. Queen v. San Diego Marine Constr. Corp., 708 F.2d 1483, 1492 (9th Cir.1983).

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