
    James SALSMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ACCESS SYSTEMS AMERICAS, INC., Defendant-Appellee, and Tomihisa Kamada; et al., Defendants.
    No. 11-16528.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
    
    Filed Jan. 3, 2013.
    James Salsman, Fort Lupton, CO, pro se.
    Anna Ferrari, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA, David J. Murphy, Esquire, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Angela Lauer Polk, Esquire, Law Office of Angela Polk, San Ma-teo, CA, for Defendant-Appellee/Defen-dants.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Salsman’s request for oral argument is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

James Salsman appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his employment action under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Salsman failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the release agreement that Salsman signed was valid. See Stroman v. W. Coast Grocery Co., 884 F.2d 458, 462-63 (9th Cir.1989) (a release of claims is valid if it is voluntary, deliberate, and informed); see also Pardi v. Kaiser Found. Hosps., 389 F.3d 840, 848 (9th Cir.2004) (upholding settlement agreement releasing ADA claims where plaintiff failed to establish that the agreement was procured by duress or any other basis that would render it invalid).

Salsman’s contentions that the district court improperly denied his requests for discovery and to amend the complaint and that he did not receive notice of the summary judgment motion are not supported by the record.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Accordingly, Sals-man’s request for publication is denied.
     