
    Sherrie JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-16364
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 8, 2017 
    
    Filed May 10, 2017
    
      Sherrie Johnson, Pro Se
    S. Scott Greenberg, Clark County School District, Office of the General Counsel, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sherrie Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her federal employment action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision regarding the sufficiency of service of process. Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Johnson’s action for insufficient of service of process because, despite being given detailed instructions and multiple extensions of time, Johnson failed to serve defendant with a summons and complaint in a proper manner. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1) (“A summons must be served with a copy of the complaint ... within the time allowed by Rule 4(m) [and] [t]he plaintiff .., must furnish the necessary copies to the person who makes service.”); In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 512-13 (9th Cir. 2001) (district court has discretion to dismiss action for failure to effectuate proper service absent a showing of good cause).

We reject as unsupported by the record Johnson’s contentions concerning bias by the district court.

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, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     