
    Jeffery L. PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 10-16629.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 10, 2012.
    Jeffery L. Phillips, Des Moines, WA, pro se.
    Karla Delord, Assistant U.S., Reid Charles Pixler, Assistant U.S., USPX-Of-fice of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jeffery L. Phillips appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action contesting the Drug Enforcement Agency’s seizure and forfeiture of $161,868.06 in cash that police officers discovered in Phillips’s vehicle after he was stopped for speeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal, Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir.2011), and for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to amend, Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Phillips’s action because Phillips pursued his administrative remedies by filing a “Petition for Remission or Mitigation of Forfeiture” and conceded that he received the notice of forfeiture. See Conservation Force, 646 F.3d at 1242 (“If a party pursues the administrative path, files a petition for remission, and the petition is denied, the only avenue to set aside the declaration of forfeiture is if the notice of forfeiture was not received.”) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 983(e)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir.1995).

We are not persuaded by Phillips’s remaining contentions, including that his petition for remission was also meant to be a claim invoking judicial review.

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