MEMORANDUM **

Robert Wooten appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims relating to his mortgage. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Filler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Wooten’s Racketeer Influenced and' Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) claim because Wooten failed to allege with sufficient particularity a pattern of racketeering activity. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b) (allegations of fraud must be “state[d] with particularity”); Lancaster Cmty. Hosp. v. Antelope Valley Hosp. Dist., 940 F.2d 397, 405 (9th Cir. 1991) (Rule 9(b)’s requirements apply to allegations regarding fraudulent predicate acts in RICO claims). Moreover, the district court correctly found that Wooten’s RICO claim was untimely. See Pincay v. Andrews, 238 F.3d 1106, 1108-09 (9th Cir. 2001) (RICO claims have a four-year statute of limitations, which begins to run when a plaintiff knows or should have known of the injury underlying his action).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in *395 the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.