Billy Tyler appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his claim under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act against the Environmental Protection Agency. After careful de novo review, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000), we conclude that the court properly dismissed the claim because Tyler failed to allege that he had provided written notice to the *476 EPA of his intent to sue, as CERCLA requires, see 42 U.S.C. § 9659(a)(2), even after he was allowed to amend his complaint to cure this defect. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.