
    Thuy P. JOSEPH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-35205
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2016 
    
    FILED June 22, 2016
    Daniel W. Bower, Stewart Taylor & Morris, PLLC, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Michael E. Kelly, Attorney, Lopez & Kelly PLLC, Boise, ID for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Thuy P. Joseph appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing' her race and national origin discrimination action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Joseph’s action because Joseph failed to allege facts sufficient to show that any defendant discriminated against her on the basis of her race or national origin, or retaliated against her for filing a complaint with the Idaho Human Rights Commission. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Nat'l Ass’n for Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. Cal. Bd. of Psychology, 228 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000) (in determining whether a complaint states a claim for relief, “we may consider facts contained in documents attached to the complaint”); see also 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (setting forth text of Title VI); Murray v. Principal Fin. Grp., Inc., 613 F.3d 943, 944 (9th Cir. 2010) (Title VII only applies to employees); Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 978 (9th Cir. '2004) (§ 1983 “does not create any substantive rights; rather it is the vehicle whereby plaintiffs can challenge actions by governmental officials” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

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

We reject Joseph’s contentions that the district court was unfairly prejudiced against her.

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