MEMORANDUM ***

Frederick J. Killian appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his employment action alleging discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, We review de novo, Cotton v. City of Alameda, 812 F.2d 1245, 1247 (9th Cir. 1987), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Killian failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for declining to interview or hire him was pretext for discrimination on the basis of Killian’s age. See France v. Johnson, 795 F.3d 1170, 1173-75 (9th Cir. 2015) (explaining burden shifting framework for analyzing an ADEA claim on summary judgment, and setting forth plaintiffs burden in raising a genuine dispute of material fact as to pretext); see also Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1284-85 (9th Cir. 2000) (concluding stray remarks by members of manage *678 ment and unwise business judgments were not sufficient to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s proffered reasons were pretextual).

We reject as without merit Killian’s contentions regarding the district court’s failure to hold a trial and handling of discovery.

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).

Killian’s request that the court vacate testimony, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

Killian’s scheduling request, filed on June 20, 2016, is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.