
    Kit LOCKLEAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Greg MENDOZA, Governor; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-15955.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 23, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 10, 2014.
    Kit Locklear, Casa Grande, AZ, pro se.
    Linus Everling, Esquire, Rebecca Hall, Gila River Indian Community Pima Mari-copa Tribe Law Office, Sacaton, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: HAWKINS, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kit Locklear appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action challenging his termination from his employment with the Gila River Indian Community Department of Rehabilitation and Supervision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo questions of sovereign immunity and subject matter jurisdiction. Orff v. United States, 358 F.3d 1137, 1142 (9th Cir.2004). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.

Although the district court did have subject matter jurisdiction over Locklear’s constitutional claims, dismissal was proper because Locklear failed to state claims and because the tribe was immune from suit. See R.J. Williams Co. v. Fort Belknap Hous. Auth., 719 F.2d 979, 982 (9th Cir.1983) (“[N]o action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 can be maintained in federal court for persons alleging deprivation of constitutional rights under color of tribal law. Indian tribes are separate and distinct sover-eignties and are not constrained by the provisions of the fourteenth amendment.” (internal citations omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     