
    Ida FOSTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; Office of Personnel Management, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-16567.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2015.
    
    Filed May 19, 2015.
    Ida Foster, Benicia, CA, pro se.
    Merry Jean Chan, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ida Foster appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction her Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) action concerning the elimination of her life insurance benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to .28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Foster’s negligence claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Foster failed to exhaust her administrative remedies as required by the FTCA. See 28

U.S.C. § 2675(a); Brady, 211 F.3d at 502 (“The requirement of an administrative claim is jurisdictional.”); see also Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch., 343 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir.2003) (a party opposing a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction “must furnish affidavits or other evidence necessary to satisfy its burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction”).

We do not consider Foster’s contentions regarding the Employee Retirement Portability and Accountability Act because they were not properly raised before the district court. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999). We also 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).

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