
    Larry E. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 09-17715.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 13, 2011.
    
    Filed April 25, 2011.
    Larry E. Johnson, Tucson, AZ, pro se.
    Michael A. Johns, USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, Katherine R. Loo, Special Assistant U.S., SSA-Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    
      Before: FERNANDEZ, RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and WELLS, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Lesley Wells, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Larry Johnson appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action against Michael Astrue, the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA), for lack of jurisdiction See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). We affirm.

Johnson asserts that because he had filed claims for discrimination and harassment with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) arising out of his employment by SSA, the district court had jurisdiction, even though he had entered into a settlement and withdrawn all complaints and appeals. He asserts that SSA breached the settlement agreement and points out that an EEOC regulation indicates that the EEOC may order compliance or reinstatement of a claim when it is satisfied that a breach has been shown. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(c). However, that regulation does not waive the government’s sovereign immunity and confer the power to adjudicate Johnson’s claim of breach on the district court. See Munoz v. Mabus, 630 F.3d 856, 860-863 (9th Cir. 2010). That being so, the district court did not have jurisdiction over the claim.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.
     
      
      . He asserted jurisdiction pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17.
     
      
      . On appeal, Johnson alludes to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § § 701-706. However, he neither pled nor argued the provisions of that Act before the district court, and we will not consider the issue on appeal. See Crawford v. Lungren, 96 F.3d 380, 389 n. 6 (9th Cir. 1996).
     