
    William GRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. F. DIAZ, c/o, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-35049.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 21, 2015.
    
    Filed Aug. 3, 2015.
    
      William Gray, Orofíno, ID, pro se.
    Leslie M. Hayes, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General Department of Correction, Boise, ID, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Idaho state prisoner William Gray appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a retaliation claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Gray failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Diaz took an adverse action against her because Gray filed civil actions against Idaho prison officials. See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir.2009) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context).

The district court’ did not abuse its discretion by failing to grant additional time to conduct additional discovery before ruling on Diaz’s motion for summary judgment because Gray failed to request such an extension or show that the discovery was essential to oppose summary judgment. See Getz v. Boeing Co., 654 F.3d 852, 867-68 (9th Cir.2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a plaintiff must show that the discovery sought would have precluded summary judgment).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gray’s motion to strike Diaz’s affidavit because the affidavit was notarized and the relevant portions were made based on personal knowledge. See Herring v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 894 F.2d 1020, 1021 (9th Cir.1989) (standard of review).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

We do not consider issues and arguments incorporated by reference on appeal. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.1992).

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