Sherrie Johnson v. Clark County School District

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 10 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHERRIE JOHNSON, No. 16-16364
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-02213-JAD-VCF
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 8, 2017**
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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.
2 16-16364