MEMORANDUM ***

1. Before the district court, Carter “oppose[d] the dismissal without prejudice of his remaining state law claims” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), and so “waived [his] objection to the district court’s discretionary exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.” Kohler v. Inter-Tel Techs., 244 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2001).

2. Summary judgment is proper, “after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case .... In such a situation, there can be no genuine issue as to any material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). In support of his claims, Carter submitted only his vague, conclusory answers to Family and Child Treatment’s interrogatories, and “this court has refused to find a genuine issue where the only evidence presented is uncorroborated and self-serving testimony.” Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also FTC v. Publ’g Clearing House, *637 Inc., 104 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 1997) (“A conelusory, self-serving affidavit, lacking detailed facts and any supporting evidence, is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.”)-

AFFIRMED.