Plaintiff-Appellant Nicolas Estiverne appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. The only issue he identifies for our review is whether “the Trial Court erred in granting the Motion for Summary Judgment without allowing the documents that were to be introduced at the Trial to be filed.” Estiverne’s argument on this point is without merit — neither Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986), which Estiverne cites, nor any other authority required the district court to permit him to file his trial exhibits before the court granted summary judgment. Liberally construed, Estiverne’s brief also raises the question whether summary judgment was proper on the evidence before the district court. See Price v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 1026, 1028 (5th Cir. 1988) (noting that we “liberally construe the briefs of pro se appellants”). We review this question de novo. Bolton v. City of Dallas, 472 F.3d 261, 263 (5th Cir. 2006). For essentially the reasons set forth in the district court’s summary judgment order, we hold that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact” and *225 JPMorgan Chase is “entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.