
    Richard J. GLAIR, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. NATIONAL EVALUATION SERVICES, Erroneously Sued As National Evaluation Systems, Defendant—Appellee.
    No. 09-56161.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed March 25, 2011.
    Richard J. Glair, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Raymond J. Carey, Esquire, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Detroit, MI, Christopher Ward, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Richard J. Glair appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action alleging breach of contract, negligence, and constitutional claims, arising from Glair’s failure to pass the California Subject Examination of Teachers (“CSET”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir.2004). We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to amend. Lipton v. Pathogenesis Corp., 284 F.3d 1027, 1038 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Glair’s claims were barred by the limitation and waiver of liability provisions in the registration for the CSET. See Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc., 24 Cal.4th 83, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745, 6 P.3d 669, 690 (2000) (contract provision is enforceable unless it is procedurally and substantively unconscionable); Tunkl v. Regents of Univ. of Cal, 60 Cal.2d 92, 32 CaL.Rptr. 33, 383 P.2d 441, 445-46 (1963) (enumerating factors to determine whether an exculpatory provision is invalid because it involves the “public interest”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Glair’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint. See Lipton, 284 F.3d at 1039 (affirming denial of leave to amend where amendment would be futile).

Glair’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We deny Glair’s motion to supplement the record.

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