
    John T. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Eugene P. Libby, D.O. A Professional Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-16031
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 29, 2017
    John T. Washington, Pro Se
    Shara L. Larson, Attorney, Zachariah Larson, Esquire, Matthew C. Zirzow, Esquire, Larson Zirzow & Kaplan, LLC, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

John T. Washington appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his medical malpractice action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 F.3d 958, 962 (9th Cir. 2016). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

Dismissal of Washington’s state law claims was proper because Washington’s action was filed more than one year after he discovered his claim, and Washington has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to either statutory or equitable tolling. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41A.097(2)-(3) (setting forth one-year limitation period after discovery of professional negligence claim and statutory tolling for concealment of evidence); Copeland v. Desert Inn Hotel, 99 Nev. 823, 673 P.2d 490, 492 (1983) (listing non-exhaustive factors considered for equitable tolling).

Contrary to Washington’s contention, the United States was not properly served, and we do not consider the merits of Washington’s claims against the United States.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal, see Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009), or documents not presented to the district court, see United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     