N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT LISA ANN ATKINS, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C REIGHTON ELEM ENTAR Y SC HOOL DISTR IC T, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-16901 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-00729-SR B M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Susa n R . B olton, District Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July 22, 2014 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, C ANB Y, a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s . Lisa Ann Atkins a

ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in he r Title VII a c tion a lle ging ge nde r disc rim ination. W e hav e jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w for an a buse of disc re tion thedistric t c o urt’ s 

# F IL ED AUG 01 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).de c ision re ga rding thesuffic ie nc y

of se rvic e of proc e ss. R io Props., Inc . v . Rio Int’l Inte rlink

, 284 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th C ir. 2002). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

granting sum

m ary judgm e nt for de fe nda

nt be c a use i t c orre c t ly

de te rm ine d tha

t Atkins faile d to e ffe c t

uate se rvic e in c om

plia nc e with R

ule 4 of the Fe de ra l R

ule s of C ivil Proc e dure . Se e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 4(j)(2) (re q uiring se rvic e of proc e s s on sta te or loc a l gove rnm e nt e ntity by e ithe r de live ring sum

m ons a nd c om pla int on e ntity ’ s c hie f e xe c utive offic e r or se rving a

c opy of e a c h in the m anne r prosc ribe d by sta te la w); Batty v . Gle ndale Union High Sch. Dist. N o. 205 , 212 P.3d 930, 933-34 (Ariz . C t. App. 2009) (unde r Ariz ona

la w, de live ry

of notic e of c l a im

on supe rinte nde nt insuffic ie nt to c om

ple te se rvic e of proc e ss on de fe nda nt sc hool distric t); se ealso Be nny v . Pipe s , 799 F.2d 489, 492 (9th C ir. 1986) (e xpla i ning tha t a c tua l notic e is insuffic ie nt to c onfe r pe rsona l jurisdic t ion ove r a de fe n da nt if se rvic e doe s not substa ntia lly c om ply with Fe d. R . C iv. P. 4). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng Atkins le ave to am e nd to a lle ge , am ong othe r things, a c la im unde r 42 U.S.C . § 1983 be c a u se am e ndm e nt would ha

ve be e n futile . Se eAhlme y e r v . N e v . Sy s. of Higher Educ . , 555 F.3d 1051, 1055 (9th C ir. 2009) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

n d e xpla ining tha

t le a ve to a m e nd m ay be de nie d if a

m e ndm e nt would be futile ). 1 2 - 1 6 9 0 1 2W e do not c onside r argum e nts ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l, inc luding that de fe n da nt wa ive d its se rvic e of proc e ss de fe nse . Se ePe te r son v . Highland Music , Inc . , 140 F.3d 1313, 1321 (9th C ir. 1998) (a pply ing a “ g e n e ra l rule ” a ga inst e nte rta ining a

rgum e nts on a

ppe a l tha t we re not pre se nte d or de ve lope d be fore the distric t c o urt). Atkins’ s m otion to adm it into evide nc e a tra nsc ript a nd C D re c ording, file d on Fe brua ry 5, 2013, is denie d. AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 1 6 9 0 1 3