MEMORANDUM *

Candace Walters appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Odyssey Healthcare Management, denying her cross-motion, and denying her motion to remand the matter to the plan *957 administrator for further factual inquiry. We affirm.

An order granting summary judgment on cross-motions is reviewed de novo. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Conoco-Phillips Co., 546 F.3d 1142, 1145 (9th Cir. 2008). Summary judgment may be affirmed for any reason supported by the record. Id.

We may assume without deciding that the district court incorrectly disregarded Walters’ affidavit, which described her memory of submitting a claim for long-term disability benefits. Had the district court considered that affidavit, Odyssey would nonetheless be entitled to summary judgment. Under the undisputed provisions of the long-term disability plan, a participant who believes her claim was wrongly rejected must pursue an internal administrative appeal within 180 days. Likewise, federal law requires a claimant to “avail himself or herself of a plan’s own internal review procedures before bringing suit in federal court.” Diaz v. United Agric. Emp. Welfare Benefit Plan & Trust, 50 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Amato v. Bernard, 618 F.2d 559, 566-68 (9th Cir. 1980)). Walters offered no evidence that she pursued an internal review of Odyssey’s decision. She therefore cannot proceed with a federal lawsuit, see id. and there is no need to remand the matter to the plan administrator for further factual development.

AFFIRMED.