MEMORANDUM **

Robert C. Konop appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying Konop’s motion to amend or clarify his proof of claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review decisions of the bankruptcy court independently without deference to the district court’s determinations. Leichty v. Neary (In re Strand), 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not clearly err by finding that Konop’s proof of claim did not include a request for equitable relief because the claim summary focused on monetary damages and included only a single, past-tense reference to equitable relief. See Arrow Electronics, Inc. v. Justus (In re Kaypro), 218 F.3d 1070, 1073 (9th Cir. 2000) (bankruptcy court’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error). Further, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying Konop’s motion to amend the proof of claim as untimely. See Roberts Farms Inc. v. Bultman (In re Roberts Farms), 980 F.2d 1248, 1251 (9th Cir. 1992).

Konop’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Konop’s request for judicial notice is denied.

AFFIRMED.