The district court dismissed Young’s complaint on the grounds that (1) Young failed to effect proper service of process upon the defendants within the requisite time period, despite having been given extensions of time to do so, and (2) it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Young failed to set forth facts establishing that the court had either federal question or diversity jurisdiction over his lawsuit. Young’s opening brief contains no cognizable issues for review and attaches irrelevant exhibits from outside the record. His reply brief likewise fails to address, in a comprehensible manner, the basis for the district court’s dismissal of his complaint. Based on our review of the record, the district court did not err. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. Young’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.