MEMORANDUM ***

Dianna Montez seeks review of the district court’s order dismissing her Second Amended Complaint with leave ‘to amend. However, we lack jurisdiction to review that order because it was not a final decision that ended the litigation on the merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1047 (9th Cir. 2002). Moreover, the order did not merge into the district court’s final order dismissing for failure to prosecute. See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that dismissal for failure to prosecute “forfeits a litigant’s right to appeal interlocutory orders prior to judgment”). We therefore decline to consider Montez’s challenge to the district court’s dismissal with leave to amend.

Although we have jurisdiction to review the dismissal for failure to prosecute, Mon-tez has forfeited any challenge to it. See Sharemaster v. SEC, 847 F.3d 1059, 1070 (9th Cir. 2017) (“Ordinarily, we will not consider ‘matters on appeal that are not specifically and distinctly argued in appellant’s opening brief.’” (quoting United States v. Ullah, 976 F.2d 609, 514 (9th Cir. 1992))).

We have carefully considered Montez’s remaining arguments, including her claim of judicial bias, and hold that they are without merit.

AFFIRMED.